Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO.
463 S.E.2d 79, 342 N.C. 182, 1995 N.C. LEXIS 536
Opinion
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
However, as in Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 463 S.E.2d 206 (1995), we disavow the language of the Court of Appeals in its decision in this case suggesting that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A illus. 1 (1965) is illustrative of the type of conduct required to satisfy the “substantial certainty” test of Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO., 463 S.E.2d 79, 342 N.C. 182, 1995 N.C. LEXIS 536 (N.C. 1995).
463 S.E.2d 79 (Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators
555 S.E.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Tinch v. Video Industrial Services, Inc.
497 S.E.2d 295 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
Rose v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co., Inc.
472 S.E.2d 774 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
Pastva v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
468 S.E.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Mickles v. Duke Power Co.
463 S.E.2d 206 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1995)