Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, WARNINGS ISSUES—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—M.D.N.C.: Hydrovac seller denied dismissal of claims in operator injury suit, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The operator plausibly alleged that the seller’s failure to warn caused his injuries and that the seller was not a “mere conduit” of the product immune from liability.

In an action brought against a hydrovac truck seller by a man who sustained injuries from an overpressure accident while operating the vehicle, a federal district court in North Carolina declined to dismiss the operator’s failure-to-warn claim. The court found that the complaint allegations plausibly showed that the seller actively serviced, demonstrated, and trained others with the truck; that it had ample opportunity to inspect the truck and its warnings; that it knew or had reason to know of its associated risks; that there were no warnings on the system, contrary to the requirements of state law; and that the operator would have heeded the warnings had any adequate warnings existed (Mitchell v. Trans-West, Inc., No. 1:24cv677 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Background. In July 2021, a man was operating a hydrovac truck, described as Truck #5304, near Fayetteville, North Carolina. He and another employee of Delta Directional, a subcontractor, were assisting with natural gas pipeline installation. During use, overpressure caused the sludge pump’s flange cap to detach violently, striking the man and spraying hot mud, resulting in severe injuries. The operator alleged that Trans-West Inc. sold or leased the truck to his employer, conducted servicing and demonstrations, provided on-site training, and had the opportunity to inspect the vehicle—including for warnings or instructions. He added that, had adequate warnings or instructions relating to overpressure been present, he would not have been injured. He brought a Section 99B failure-to-warn claim against the seller under North Carolina law, and Trans-West moved to dismiss, arguing insufficient proof of causation and immunity as a “mere conduit” of the vehicle.

Legal standard. North Carolina’s products liability law, codified at Chapter 99B, abrogates strict liability in favor of a negligence-based regime. Section 99B-5(a) provides: “No manufacturer or seller of a product shall be held liable in any product liability action for a claim based upon inadequate warning or instruction unless the claimant proves that the manufacturer or seller acted unreasonably in failing to provide such warning or instruction, that the failure to provide adequate warning or instruction was a proximate cause of the harm for which damages are sought,” and that the product without an adequate warning or instruction created an unreasonably dangerous condition that the manufacturer or seller knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, posed a substantial risk of harm to a reasonably foreseeable claimant, yet “failed to take reasonable steps to give adequate warning or instruction or to take other reasonable action under the circumstances.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-5(a). The Chapter also includes a statutory “mere conduit” exception: no product liability action, unless based on breach of express warranty, can be maintained against any seller that acquired and sold a sealed product or had no reasonable opportunity to inspect for defects, unless certain exceptions apply. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(a); Crews v. W.A. Brown & Son, Inc., 416 S.E.2d 924 (N.C. App. 1992).

Proximate causation. Trans-West attacked the pleading on the grounds that it failed to plausibly allege a causal connection between (1) the lack of warnings about the risks of an overpressure and/or pressure differential and (2) the injury, and that it did not allege knowledge or foreseeability of hazard. The court found otherwise: the complaint detailed how Trans-West had been in the business of selling and servicing hydrovac trucks for years, advertising its expertise, and providing on-site training and demonstrations. These allegations supported a reasonable inference that Trans-West knew or should have known about the overpressure risk and that it had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the truck. including an inspection for any and all warnings, labels, and/or instructions or lack thereof. The operator specifically pleaded that there were no warnings anywhere on the system, contrary to the requirements of Section 99B-5, and that had warnings existed, he would have heeded them—a core element that North Carolina precedent requires with directness. Trans-West relied on (1) Presnell v. Snap-On Securecorp, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 702 (M.D.N.C. 2022), in which a defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted based on a finding that a hammer which caused the injury bore a warning label that adequately conveyed the risk of the very injury the plaintiff suffered; and (2) Burgess v. Pfizer, Inc. (E.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2020), where a plaintiff did not allege that a prescription drug’s existing warning label affected his decision to use the drug. These cases were inapposite since they involved situations where adequate warnings had already been supplied or no reliance was alleged. Here, by contrast, the allegations permitted a direct inference of causation and reliance. Accordingly, the seller’s motion was denied on this ground.

Mere conduit. Trans-West claimed it had statutory immunity as a “mere conduit,” emphasizing an absence of design or manufacturing control of the vehicle. The court recited that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(a) shields from liability sellers who transfer a sealed product from a reputable manufacturer with no reasonable opportunity for inspection or knowledge of defect. Trans-West cited Crews v. W.A. Brown & Son, Inc., 416 S.E.2d 924, 928 (N.C. App. 1992) for the proposition that where the seller of a product made by a reputable manufacturer “acts as a mere conduit and has no knowledge or reason to know of a product's dangerous propensities, [the seller] is under no affirmative duty to inspect or test for a latent defect, and therefore, liability cannot be” attached. However, the Crews court went on to note that a seller who assembles and installs the product acts as more than a “mere conduit,” and bears the duty to exercise reasonable care in installing and inspecting the product as well as to warn of hazards attendant to the product's use. Because the complaint here alleged that Trans-West not only sold or leased, but also serviced, demonstrated, and provided on-site training for the hydrovac truck, the court found that the seller went far beyond the role of a mere distributor. Allegations that Trans-West advertised knowledge of which truck best suited a customer’s job further suggested actual or constructive awareness of operating risks. The complaint also specifically pleaded that Trans-West had “a reasonable opportunity to inspect” for defects and that had such inspection been performed, the risk would have been discovered. Accordingly, the “mere conduit” issue was a factual question unsuited for resolution on a motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 1:24cv677.

Judge: Schroeder, T.

Attorneys: Jon R. Moore (Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC) for Timothy Lee Mitchell. William John Cathcart, Jr. (Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, PLLC) for Trans-West, Inc. Samuel H. Poole, Jr. (Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP) for Mears Group, Inc. Rodney E. Pettey (Pettey & Partrick, L.L.P.) for Foremost Industries LP, Foremost Equipment LP and Foremost Universal LP.

Companies: Trans-West, Inc.; Mears Group, Inc.; Foremost Industries LP; Foremost Equipment LP; Foremost Universal LP

Cases: CourtDecisions IndustrialCommercialEquipNews WarningsNews SCLIssuesNews DefensesLiabilityNews CausationNews NorthCarolinaNews