Court Opinion

ID: 9855272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:08.517119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:28.350378
License: Public Domain

*156Judge Wynn
dissenting,
I agree that this Court is bound by our Supreme Court’s ruling in Tetterton v. Long Manufacturing Co., 314 N.C. 44, 332 S.E.2d 67 (1985) which upheld the constitutionality of our statute of repose, N.C.G.S. § 1-50(6). However, in my opinion, our Supreme Court should reconsider its rejection of Judge (now Justice) Whichard’s persuasive reasoning in Bolick v. American Barmag Corp., 54 N.C. App. 589, 590-91, 284 S.E.2d 188, 189-90 (1981):
We hold G.S. 1-50 (6) unconstitutional on its face, and therefore reverse. The courts have a duty when it is clear a statute transgresses the authority vested in the legislature by the Constitution ... to declare the act unconstitutional.” Wilson v. High Point, 238 N.C. 14, 23, 76 S.E.2d 546, 552 (1953); Board of Managers v. Wilmington, 237 N.C. 179, 74 S.E.2d 749 (1953); Glenn v. Board of Education, 210 N.C. 525, 187 S.E. 781 (1936). Article I, section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution, quoted infra, guarantees access to the courts for redress of injuries. The attempt by enactment of G.S. 1-50 (6) to abrogate the right of access to the courts of persons who sustain injury, death, or property damage due to a defect or failure of a product, violates that provision ....
Notwithstanding our constraints on the issue of constitutionality, I believe that the Arizona statute of repose is the applicable statute for this case. As the majority indicates, for claims based upon breach of implied warranty, the courts must use the substantive law of the state which has the most significant relationship to the matters in controversy. See Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 368 S.E.2d 849 (1988); Terry v. Pullman, 92 N.C. App. 687, 376 S.E.2d 47 (1987). Boudreau and Terry, as the majority points out, resolve the “significant interest” test in favor of the state of sale and distribution.
In the subject case, the brake assembly was sold, distributed and used in Arizona. It follows that the law of Arizona applies with respect to plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims.