Pedestrian Accidents

November 19, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Pedestrian Injury Case based on Plaintiff’s Contributory Negligence

Pedestrian accidents can be particularly devastating due to the serious and catastrophic injuries that often result when a vehicle collides with an unprotected pedestrian. There are also often complicated legal issues in these cases regarding whether the pedestrian was walking in a permissible area at the time of the crash. If you were injured in a pedestrian accident, the experienced and compassionate Charlotte pedestrian accident lawyers at Maurer Law are prepared to help you assess your right to compensation.

The North Carolina C0urt of Appeals recently discussed a case involving a pedestrian accident. The plaintiff was walking from her apartment toward a retail store while the defendant was driving home from work at roughly 35 miles-per-hour. The plaintiff crossed two southbound lanes of the street on which the defendant was traveling and stopped at the paved median. A car in the turning late stopped to allow the plaintiff to cross, and an SUV in the adjacent lane also stopped due to backed up traffic. The SUV driver honked its horn and the plaintiff started running across the remaining northbound lanes. The defendant’s car immediately struck the plaintiff as she ran into the outermost northbound lane resulting in injuries.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted negligently at the time of the crash and the defendant responded by arguing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in crossing a five-lane street during rush hour traffic outside of the crosswalk. The defendant moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff promptly appealed.

June 13, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Pedestrian Accident Finding that Plaintiff was Contributorily Negligent

by Maurer Law

If you are injured in a car accident or pedestrian accident it is critical for you to know your rights and to understand whether the person who caused your injuries owes you compensation. There are countless doctrines and laws that are involved in a personal injury accident, which can make the process seem incredibly overwhelming. At Maurer Law, our seasoned Raleigh car accident lawyers are prepared to help you navigate the legal system as efficiently and smoothly as possible while ensuring that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve.

A recent case involved a pedestrian accident in which the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was attempting to cross the street. The plaintiff stepped into the roadway in front of an SUV that had come to a stop in the road because of accumulating traffic in its lane. As the plaintiff stepped into the road, she peered around the front of the SUV to see if the lane was clear. The SUV driver blew its horn and the plaintiff decided to run across the road. The defendant’s vehicle, which was traveling in the lane adjacent to the lane in which the SUV was stopped, immediately struck the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant was negligent in hitting the plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by running out into the road. The lower court agreed and granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that there were questions of fact regarding whether she was contributorily negligent and whether the doctrine of last clear chance applied.

February 21, 2018

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Summary Judgment for Defendant in Pedestrian Accident Case Involving Contributory Negligence Allegations

by Maurer Law

Car accidents can arise in a wide variety of circumstances. One of the most common issues in a pedestrian accident case is whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. As seasoned North Carolina pedestrian accident attorneys, the lawyers at Maurer Law are prepared to help you evaluate your potential claim and to assist you with protecting your right to compensation.

A recent appellate decision discussed whether the driver of a vehicle that struck a tree lying across the roadway on which the plaintiff was standing was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff was driving a truck near Asheville in an evening during October 2015. The plaintiff’s father was a passenger in the vehicle. While driving toward their home, they observed a tree branch that had fallen across the roadway and was hanging off the ground. The plaintiff’s father told the plaintiff to slow down, and they pulled over to remove the branch. They turned on the vehicle’s traffic lights, and the plaintiff’s father contacted his wife to ask her to bring a chainsaw to their location. The plaintiff climbed onto the tree so that he could get across and attempt to wave down any passing cars while waiting for the chainsaw. A vehicle approached, and the plaintiff started waving his arms to get the vehicle operator’s attention. The plaintiff’s father testified later that the plaintiff had been goofing around while on the tree and that he did not get down from the tree as the vehicle approached because they thought it was going to stop.

The driver of the approaching vehicle testified that the sun was shining into his windshield immediately before the incident, making it difficult for him to see the plaintiff on the tree. The oncoming car collided with the tree, and on impact a branch struck the plaintiff in the head and threw him onto the adjacent roadway. The plaintiff was airlifted to the hospital and required serious medical attention.

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.