NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Products Liability

When a person suffers injury as a result of contact with a specific product, the legal issues raised can be complex. If the product was defective in design, manufacture, or labeling, or there was a failure to warn of some risk, the injured person may have grounds for a legal claim against the manufacturer or seller. However, if the injured person's misuse of the product was at least a partial cause of the injury, in North Carolina the manufacturer and seller are generally not liable. In addition to case law developed by the North Carolina appellate courts over decades, products liability claims and defenses to such claims are governed by the North Carolina Product Liability Act.

Whether you have suffered harm from a defective product, or you are the manufacturer or seller of a product, you have legal options – but you need the assistance of an experienced products liability attorney to protect your rights. The Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown firm has filed claims on behalf of injured persons and has defended companies in a large number of products liability lawsuits. Because we have handled both sides of these issues, we are familiar with many of the challenges you will face in a products liability claim, and we recognize which issues are most likely to affect the outcome of your case. We consult with necessary experts to help with factual issues, such as causation and whether a product was defective, and we use our extensive understanding of the applicable laws to build a case for each client.

Our attorneys have the experience and knowledge necessary to either represent individuals who believe they have been harmed by a product or to defend a company who has manufactured or sold a product that allegedly caused an injury.

Attorneys Who Usually Handle Matters in the Products Liability Practice Area:

Legal Decisions of Interest

  • Plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix of a decedent’s estate the day after her complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had run related back to the filing of the summons and therefore her wrongful death claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Tallman v. City of Gastonia, No. COA08-1021 (N.C. App. Sept. 15, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Punitive damages upheld when Court believed there was sufficient evidence that defendant’s restaurant manager’s conduct was willful and wanton based upon his conduct toward plaintiff at the restaurant. Everhart v. O’Charley’s Inc., No. COA08-1454 (N.C. App. Oct. 6, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff (representative of deceased employee) failed in her burden of forecasting evidence that a parent company affirmatively undertook to provide a safe working environment at the parent company’s subsidiary plant, beyond concern or minimal contact about safety matters, and the parent company did not assume primary responsibility for industrial safety at the subsidiary’s plant.  Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc., No. COA09-247 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff allowed to pursue claim to have “corporate veil” pierced of defendant company so that the obligation on a note by individual owning 99% of the stock of the defendant company could be satisfied from assets of defendant company, even though the company did not participate in the making of the note giving rise to the owner’s obligation. Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Catawba Development Corp., No. COA08-1407 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Homeowners Association did not owe to a minor who was struck while riding his bike by a vehicular driver a legal duty to maintain the foliage in the common area of the housing subdivision. Fairbanks v. Brewington, No. COA09-237 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she tripped over an end table at a hospital, and she presented no evidence that her attention was diverted as she was walking. Snow v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, No. COA09-189 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the Complaint was not frivolous based upon the facts and the law, but because Plaintiff had a history of filing frivolous pleadings in general and against Defendant in particular, the trial court could conclude that Plaintiff filed the Complaint for an improper purpose. Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, No. COA08-1508 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the plaintiff mother alleged that the city was negligent by failing to comply with safety statutes and city ordinances regulating the maintenance of city streets, obstructions to vision and traffic, and parking regulations, and she did not seek to recover damages for the death of her child based on a law enforcement agency's failure to exercise its general duty to protect the public, she was not barred by the public duty doctrine.  Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • The improvement-to-real-property statute of repose does not apply to a claim against a city for failing to maintain its streets because a city has the duty to exercise a continuing supervision over its streets in order that it may know their condition and it is held to have knowledge of a defect which such inspection would have disclosed to it. Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Office Location

Phone:
336.282.8848
Fax:
336.282.8409
3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410
NC Personal Injury Lawyers