Question

In 1992, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in a case entitled Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., that when a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not a bar to recovery against the seller that the substance was natural to the food. If, in a 2004 case involving a consumer's injury caused by a fish bone in a bowl of fish chowder, the court followed the decision in Goodman, the court's action in the second case is an example of:

a. Statutory Law
b. Stare decisis
c. Public law
d. Criminal Law

Answer 1

The North Carolina Supreme Court's potential decision to follow precedent regarding a naturally occurring substance causing injury in food would exemplify the principle of 'stare decisis'.

Step-by-step explanation:

If the North Carolina Supreme Court in a 2004 case involving a consumer's injury by a fish bone in fish chowder followed the decision in Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., stating that the presence of a naturally occurring substance (such as a bone) in food does not prevent a consumer from recovering damages, this is an example of the court applying the principle of stare decisis. This legal principle mandates that courts follow the precedents set by previous decisions unless there is a strong reason to diverge. Thus, the court's action in the second case would be adhering to the earlier legal ruling in Goodman, signalling continuity and consistency in the law.