On 8/3/10, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court challenging a ruling that removed a standard product-alteration defense in a product liability case. The defense protects manufacturers against liability when their products are altered by someone else, yet the lower court in this case said the defense is not available unless the alteration was done by a party to the litigation. We argued that the “party” can be any party, not just one involved in the lawsuit. Otherwise, North Carolina plaintiffs can game the system and the state’s courts will become inefficient and unfair jurisdictions for manufacturers.
The Court granted review in the case, and the NAM and others filed an additional brief on March 4, 2011. We noted that the state legislature approved the principle that manufacturers or sellers are not liable for harms caused by product misuse. At the core of this determination is the general principle that a manufacturer of a product may be held responsible for foreseeble harms caused by a defect existing at the time of sale, but should not be held liable for harms caused by others beyond the manufacturer's control. Expanding liability beyond this principle would harm manufacturers, who would have no way to safeguard the ultimate consumer, no way to modify their own behavior to minimize the risk, and no way to determine the extent of the potential risk.
On April 13, 2012, the court reversed the lower court, ruling that the product alteration defense is available to a manufacturer regardless of whether the person making the alteration is a party to the lawsuit. The North Carolina statute does not limit the availability of the defense depending on who is suing, and there was sufficient evidence in the case that the product was altered after delivery, i.e., the seatbeat was placed in an improper position before the car accident. Only a few exceptions to the defense are available, generally involving alterations that have been approved by the manufacturer. This is a clear victory in our attempt to prevent trial lawyers from expanding liability to manufacturers in situations where the manufacturer is not responsible for the injury.