Court Opinion

ID: 9568757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:14.416387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:49.628138
License: Public Domain

*283Judge LEWIS
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Carbo-Solv arrived in a five gallon can as expected with an invoice reciting that the product ordered had arrived. Bill Robinson told the plaintiffs’ agents how to apply the material, leaving little reason to consult the label. In Ziglar, supra, the product had a distinct and unpleasant odor (“like rotten eggs”). Here, the odor was also distinct and unpleasant. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in Ziglar, stated “[w]e further hold that the defense of contributory negligence was not established in this case as a matter of law.” Id. at 160. For us to reverse this judgment and direct entry of judgment for the defendant is contrary to Ziglar and G.S. 2D § 99B-4. I believe that the adequacy of the label and the proximate cause of the injury in this case are issues of fact for the jury. After a full trial on all of the issues, the jury found negligence on the part of the defendant and no contributory negligence by the plaintiff. I find no error.