Motor Vehicle Accidents

February 8, 2017

Fatal Underride Accidents in North Carolina

A fatal wreck happened recently on I-40. A 53-year-old man was driving a Nissan Altima when he ran into the back of a commercial box truck and was killed. At around the same time, the police were working on a different wreck in the same area on the interstate highway, resulting in backed up traffic. The box truck was probably slowing to a stop because of this traffic, and the decedent was unable to stop in time and ran under the truck. It is believed that speed and distractedness were factors in the truck accident.

Underride collisions happen when a passenger vehicle runs into the back of a truck or trailer and runs under the truck, which sometimes takes the roof off the car and kills the occupants. Sometimes the collision is the result of a car driver’s inattention. However, it could also be the result of a lack of a safety guard, a poorly designed safety guard, missing reflective tape, or obscured reflectors.

The FMCSA requires guards for trucks and trailers that were made after 1998, but those made before that date need not be fitted with a guard. When an underride collision doesn’t cause death, it may cause catastrophic injuries, such as traumatic brain injury.

January 17, 2017

Intersection Collision Case in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In Daisy v. Yost, the plaintiff and the defendant got into a car crash in North Carolina. At trial, the evidence showed that the plaintiff came up to an intersection at the posted speed limit. He was planning to drive straight. The defendant came to the intersection from the opposite direction, planning to turn left across the plaintiff’s path.

When the plaintiff came to the intersection, the light had changed to yellow. The defendant’s light was changing from a flashing yellow arrow to a solid yellow arrow, and she was in the left turn lane. The plaintiff kept driving straight through the intersection, just as the defendant turned left. The defendant’s car hit the side of the plaintiff’s car so that the plaintiff’s car was pushed into a light post.

The plaintiff sued for his injuries and property damage and asked for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence. His motion was denied, and the case was sent to a jury. The jury found that the defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of the crash, but the plaintiff bore some contributory negligence. Accordingly, the lower court entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, but these motions were denied. He appealed.

January 3, 2017

Underinsured Motorist Coverage in a North Carolina Motorcycle Accident

by Maurer Law

How an underinsured motorist policy provision is interpreted can make a big difference to how much compensation is recovered in an accident in which a North Carolina driver’s insurance doesn’t cover all of an accident victim’s damages. In the unpublished opinion of Integon National Insurance Company v. King, a North Carolina Court of Appeals considered underinsured insurance coverage for a motorcycle accident case. The insurance company asked the court to declare it had no duty or obligation to two deceased people’s estates beyond its underinsured motorist limits of $100,000, minus what these claimants received from the at-fault driver and her insurer.

The accident arose when an insured motorcyclist (King) drove his Harley-Davidson motorcycle with a passenger (Turner). A driver (Skipper) with three passengers lost control of her car and hit the motorcycle, killing the motorcyclist and passenger. When the accident happened, the insurance company insured the car through an automobile liability insurance policy with limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The insurer distributed the $60,000 among the three passengers in the car as well as the estates of the decedents, King and Turner. This exhausted coverage.

The insurance company also insured King through a motorcycle insurance policy that included underinsured motorist coverage with maximum limits for bodily injury of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Under the policy, the insurer paid the King and Turner estates $82,072 in underinsured motorist benefits. Each estate got $100,000 for the Skipper and King policies, based on the per person limit.

December 6, 2016

Car Accidents Caused by Underinsured Motorists in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

Insurance issues can come up in car accident cases in North Carolina. If your car is hit by someone who is underinsured or uninsured, or a hit and run driver, you may have to turn to your own uninsured motorist coverage. However, this means that you may have an adversarial relationship with your own insurance company.

In Bacon v. Universal Insurance Company, a North Carolina appellate court considered whether a driver’s insurance policy provided him with underinsured motorist coverage. The case arose when the insurer issued an auto insurance policy to the plaintiff, expressly providing liability coverage, as well as medical and uninsured motorist coverage from 2010-2011. The policy included an uninsured motorist coverage endorsement.

In 2011, during the policy period, the plaintiff was seriously hurt in a car accident in which the other driver was found at fault. The other driver’s insurance carrier paid the plaintiff $50,000, which was the full liability coverage available for the claim. After that, the plaintiff submitted an underinsured motorist claim to his own insurer on the ground that the other driver’s insurance was an underinsured motor vehicle under the policy terms. His insurer denied his underinsured motorist claim.

November 29, 2016

Liability of a Police Officer in a North Carolina Car Accident Lawsuit

by Maurer Law

Recently, in Allmond v. Goodnight, a North Carolina appellate court considered a tragic car accident case involving a public official. The case arose when a highway patrolman was speeding through an intersection and crashed into a car driven by Sandra Allmond, who died at the scene. A child traveling with her suffered severe injuries.

The administrator of the estate, who was also the guardian ad litem for the child, sued the officer both individually and in his official capacity as a patrolman to recover compensatory and punitive damages. He also filed claims against the North Carolina Industrial Commission under the Tort Claims Act, and the cases were consolidated.

The officer moved to dismiss on the ground of public official immunity. This motion was denied, and the officer appealed. On appeal, he argued that the doctrine of public official immunity applied because he was chasing a speeding vehicle when he crashed into the decedent. In an unpublished opinion, the court held that the officer would be immune from liability if he were chasing a speeding car when he crashed into the decedent’s car. It ruled that if the jury determined the officer wasn’t chasing a speeding motorist, the jury would have to decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their damages.

November 15, 2016

Vicarious Liability in a North Carolina Trucking Accident

by Maurer Law

In North Carolina truck accident cases, a plaintiff may be able to hold the driver directly liable, and they may also have a claim for vicarious liability, which is an indirect form of liability, against the driver’s employer. However, vicarious liability is derivative, which means that the plaintiff can only recover damages from the employer if the employee driver is found negligent.

Harris Boling v. Greer is a North Carolina case that arose when the defendant was driving a tractor-trailer owned by his employer and crashed into the plaintiff’s truck on Interstate 40. The defendant died as a result of his injuries. However, three years afterward, the plaintiff sued him and his employer on the grounds that the decedent was negligent, that the plaintiff had suffered a head injury as a result, and that the decedent’s negligence was imputed to his employer.

The plaintiff served a summons and complaint addressed to the defendant, which reached his widow. It also served the employer by certified mail. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, to which they attached the DMV’s report of the accident and paperwork showing the decedent’s date of death. They also attached the widow’s affidavit, explaining that her husband had died as a result of the crash and that she was the administrator of his estate.

November 15, 2016

Intervening Negligence by a Plaintiff Motorcyclist in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In some motorcycle accident cases in North Carolina, intervening negligence by the plaintiff becomes an issue. An intervening negligent act is a new legal cause that breaks the connection between the injuries and the original cause, and therefore it becomes solely responsible for the injuries.

In Pope v. Bridge Broom, Inc., a North Carolina appellate court considered a wrongful death case involving a motorcycle accident. The decedent had been riding a motorcycle with her husband in Charlotte. The defendant was street sweeping, using four vehicles driving southbound. The defendant’s employee drove a pickup truck at the tail end of the street sweeper, which was supposed to absorb a rear-end impact. There was a warning sign on the truck. The truck was completely in the left land of travel.

The decedent and her husband were riding in clear weather. The driver of a van came up to the street sweeping operation and came to a total stop behind the pickup. He signaled and moved to the center lane. Another driver hit the brakes to let him move over. The husband of the decedent came up in the left lane on his motorcycle, and the husband believed he had to move over to avoid the defendant’s truck, which was just finishing up its street sweeping. When he moved, he braked, but the motorcycle slid for 195 feet and fell over. The decedent was thrown from the motorcycle and died.

November 15, 2016

Wrongful Death and Contributory Negligence in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In North Carolina, a plaintiff’s right to recover compensation in a personal injury or wrongful death action is barred upon a finding of contributory negligence. This means that the jury will look at whether a plaintiff’s own negligence or breach of duty was a contributing factor to an accident that causes his injuries or death.

Scheffer v. Dalton is a North Carolina wrongful death case. The plaintiff in the case was the administrator of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer’s estate, who sued the defendant, claiming the defendant’s negligence caused the wrongful death of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer. The defendant answered that Scheffer’s own negligence contributed to the accident, barring recovery. The plaintiff’s reply claimed that the other driver had the last clear chance to keep from hurting the man who was killed.

Scheffer drove a moped and worked at a bike shop. One day in 2010, he left the bike shop on his moped. The original headlight on the moped had broken, and the decedent had installed a bicycle light in its place. He often charged the light’s batteries at his place of employment, but there was no evidence as to whether he did this that day.

November 15, 2016

Pedestrian Injuries Due to Negligent Design in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In Blackmon v. Tri-Arc Foot Systems, a North Carolina court considered a plaintiff’s claim for damages based on negligence in designing and maintaining a parking lot. The plaintiff was age 37, working as a third shift employee for Talecris Plasma Resources. After his shift ended shortly before 8 a.m., he went to a Bojangles fast food restaurant. The restaurant had a lot with marked parking spaces for customer use, but the plaintiff didn’t park in those spaces but instead parked in front of the restaurant along the curb of the driveway.

The plaintiff later testified that he parked there because he was driving a 22-foot-long crew cab truck that wouldn’t fit in the marked spots. He wanted to be able to see the truck while eating. He’d previously parked there many times, and the defendant’s employees and manager knew that customers sometimes parked there. However, about two years before, another vehicle parked there had been rear-ended.

The plaintiff came out of the restaurant and saw that his rear taillight had been damaged, and another truck in the lot had corresponding damage. He got help from a police officer eating inside. The officer asked the plaintiff to stand behind his truck while he took down his information.

November 15, 2016

Employer Responsibility in a North Carolina Motorcycle Accident Case

by Maurer Law

In some cases, an employer can be held responsible for an employee’s negligence in a motor vehicle accident case. Lewis v. Morgan involved a charter bus company run by a husband and wife. The company employed four drivers, and occasionally the husband drove buses too. Some drivers had keys to the gate where buses were parked. If a driver who didn’t have a key needed a bus in the morning, it was the husband’s responsibility to unlock the gate so that the driver could get the bus for work.

In 2011, one of the company’s drivers called the husband and wife and asked for the gate to be opened so that he could pick people up at their hotels and drive them to the offices of a business with which the company had a contract. The following morning, the husband drove over to open the gate for the driver. However, as he turned left, he hit the plaintiff, who was riding his motorcycle the opposite way. The plaintiff was seriously injured, and the husband was cited for failure to yield.

The plaintiff sued the husband, the charter bus company, and another company owned by the couple. He claimed that the husband’s negligent driving injured him and that the charter bus company should be vicariously liable for his injuries. He also argued that the corporate veil between the charter bus company and the other company owned by the couple should be pierced. The husband’s attorney denied fault in his answer, but at deposition, the husband admitted liability.