North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

February 20, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Plaintiff who Fell Down Bleachers in Trip and Fall Accident

Under North Carolina law, property owners have a duty to ensure that their premises are reasonably safe for guests. When a property owner fails to abide by this duty, the outcome can be seriously painful or even fatal for an unknowing visitor. If you were injured on someone else’s property, you may have a claim for compensation against the owner of the property as well as the person who was in control of the premises. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Charlotte premises liability attorneys is prepared to assist you with ensuring that you receive the compensation that you deserve.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case involving a woman who was injured on a set of bleachers at a college baseball game. According to her complaint, when she stood up from her seat and began to move one of the wooden slats in the flooring caught her foot and caused her to lose her balance. She fell down the bleachers as a result of this situation and suffered severe and permanent injuries including a broken back. The plaintiff had no memory of the fall due to suffering memory loss as a result of the impact.

The defendant responded to her complaint by denying that it was liable and alleging that the plaintiff acted negligently and was, therefore, the primary cause of her injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. The plaintiff promptly appealed.

February 13, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Trip and Fall Case Based on Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

by Maurer Law

If you are injured on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and damages if you can show that the property owner did not exercise appropriate care in preventing your injury. This may sound straightforward, but a premises liability lawsuit can become complex especially if there is a dispute about exactly what happened and whether the injury was foreseeable. As Charlotte premises liability lawyers, Maurer Law is ready to assist you with determining whether you have a right to compensation after suffering an avoidable and unnecessary injury.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving an injury that happened in a private residence. The plaintiff in the case entered the home of the defendant for a party. The plaintiff went to a covered patio area and sat down to talk with other guests. Plaintiff was sitting near a step that was roughly six and one-half inches down leading to a lower patio area. The plaintiff got up from her seat after finishing speaking with the guests and fell almost instantly after attempting to walk away from her chair. She landed on her wrist and had to undergo surgery to repair the damage.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant alleged that the concrete step was unmarked and that because it was the same color as both patio levels it was difficult to see. She also alleged that the defendant failed to warn guests at the party about the hazardous nature of the step and that the defendant had considered painting the step another color or placing a railing next to it.

February 6, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Summary Judgment for Defendant in Dog Bite Case

by Maurer Law

Dog bites are incredibly painful and can result in devastating injuries and even permanent disfigurement. Many dog bite accidents happen suddenly and there may not even be any warning leading up to the attack. Dealing with an owner can be an additional frustrating component of this situation, especially if the owner is not wanting to take responsibility. One of the best ways to protect your right to recovery from a careless dog owner is to understand the North Carolina laws and to speak with an experienced Charlotte dog bite attorney.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case involving a dog bite. The defendants’ two children were walking the family dog before school. The plaintiff was walking on the opposite side of the street after escorting her daughter to the bus stop. The dog began barking at the plaintiff and tugging at his leash. The collar broke and the dog attacked plaintiff leaving several bite marks on her body. The plaintiff received medical treatment for her injuries after being taken by ambulance to the hospital. The local animal control authority indicated that there had been no prior incidents involving the dog.

The plaintiff asserted negligence, strict liability, and infliction of emotional distress in her complaint against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they had not received any complaints about the dog before this event or noticed him acting aggressively. The plaintiff filed a counter motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff included an affidavit from a veterinarian with her motion stating that the dog belonged to a dangerous breed, the American Bull Dog. The defendants deposed the expert, who testified that not all pit bulls are dangerous dogs and stated that a responsible way of restraining a pit bull is a collar and leash.

January 29, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Temporary Total Benefits Extension due to No Change in Employee’s Condition

by Maurer Law

Workers’ compensation claims can take a long time to resolve and even if you have been awarded benefits something can change in your claim to deprive you of continued payments. One example of how this can happen is if there is a change in your condition. If you were hurt at work, retaining a seasoned Charlotte workers’ compensation attorney can help you ensure that your claim is being handled appropriately and that you are receiving the compensation that you deserve. Contact Maurer Law today to schedule a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

In a recent claim dispute, the worker suffered an injury to her wrist while working as a flight attendant in 2014. The injury required the plaintiff to stop working and continue receiving medical treatment for the injury over a long period of time. A year later, the plaintiff’s wrist was still tender, but a reviewing physician could not figure out why the pain was persisting. The next year, the plaintiff returned to work without restrictions, which required her to undergo training as a flight attendant. This training required the plaintiff to show that she could lift up to 55 pounds. The plaintiff passed the test and began working later that month.

During a hearing regarding her claim for benefits, however, the plaintiff testified that she experienced extreme pain in her wrist during the training but did not report it to anyone. The plaintiff was awarded a lump sum payment for her permanent partial disability, which she accepted, and continued working. Later that year, the plaintiff reported increasing pain to her employer and was authorized to return to her doctor for treatment. During the examination, plaintiff stated that she was able to perform all of her required job duties, but the doctor assigned temporary restrictions including not lifting more than five pounds. The plaintiff continued to work and did not request to be excused based on her injury.

January 28, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Vacates Finding of No Disability in Work Injury Case

by Maurer Law

Workers’ compensation claims can be incredibly confusing. The system is not always straightforward, and it can be difficult to know whether you are receiving the treatment that you deserve. At Maurer Law, we provide compassionate and diligent legal counsel to individuals throughout North Carolina who may have been hurt at work. We understand how frustrating this experience may be for you and your family. Contact us today to begin learning about how our Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyers can assist you with your claim.

A recent workers’ compensation case discussed a few key procedural rules and determinations. The plaintiff in the case appealed a decision from the workers’ compensation commission stating that it erred in determining that he was not disabled and that his post-injury job was suitable employment. The plaintiff worked as a pipe fitter for many years. He was operating a scissor lift at work when the equipment malfunctioned causing him to be thrown. He returned to work after his injury but was restricted to light duty work and was unable to drive while taking his prescribed pain medication. After two years of treatment, the plaintiff was assigned permanent work restrictions including being prohibited from lifting more than 20 pounds, being required to alternate between sitting and standing, and wearing a brace while working.

The plaintiff was put on “helper” positions and he filed a Form 33 “Request for a Hearing” to determine whether his jobs were suitable. The commissioner presiding at the hearing concluded that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that he was disabled and therefore the question of whether his employment was suitable was not discussed. His request for total and temporary partial disability benefits was denied. The Full Commission affirmed this finding and the plaintiff appealed again.

January 15, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Award for Plaintiffs in Utility Company Negligence Case Based on Improper Jury Instructions

by Maurer Law

Bicycle accidents can happen in virtually any situation, leaving the victim with painful injuries and serious financial damages. This includes areas or objects that are maintained by government entities like utilities companies. Although utilities are a necessary component of our modern lives and key infrastructure, when maintained poorly they can put people in serious risk of suffering harm. At Maurer Law, our diligent team of Charlotte bicycle accident lawyers is ready to assist you with reviewing your potential lawsuit and whether you are entitled to compensation.

In a recent lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed damages against a utility company for injuries they sustained when they collided with one of its utility lines at different times that was lying at ground level on a public roadway. During an initial trial, the jury concluded that the defendant acted negligently and that neither plaintiff was contributorily negligent for his or her damages. The defendant appealed the lower court’s judgment based on this verdict. It also appealed the lower court’s denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

On review, the appellate court concluded that the lower court committed a reversible error when it instructed the jury about the doctrine of sudden emergency, which allowed the jury to conclude that neither plaintiff acted in a contributorily negligent manner. The record showed that severe weather caused the utility line to fall from its poles and that the defendant received notice of the fallen power line that same day. The first plaintiff was cycling along the roadway that day when another cyclist in front of her hit the wire and crashed. She was unable to stop before colliding with the cyclist and suffered severe injuries in the ensuing pileup.

January 10, 2020

North Carolina Court of Appeal Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Wrongful Death Case Involving Toddler

by Maurer Law

Wrongful death accidents are a devastating occurrence for any family, but they are particularly traumatic when the victim is a child. Although no amount of money can truly compensate you for the loss of a child, it can help you cope with the expenses that result from medical treatment, burial, and more. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Charlotte wrongful death attorneys is ready to assist you with holding someone responsible for the unnecessary loss of your child.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a claim in which a five-year-old child died when an overloaded dump truck engaged in an uncontrolled roll and struck him while he was playing near his home. Evidence provided in the case showed that the dump truck was left unattended with the engine running and without the wheel chocks engaged. The dump truck was at the location as part of a home construction site near the home of the decedent’s family.

The estate of the decedent brought a lawsuit against a number of parties including the real estate developer who designed the neighborhood on the basis that the developer maintained a duty to develop a safety plan, to reduce harm to residents from construction accidents, and to conduct inspections even though it sold lots to independent builders. The real estate developer responded by filing a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it did not owe a legal duty to the decedent. The lower court granted the motion and the plaintiffs appealed.

December 27, 2019

North Carolina Court of Appeal Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Slip and Fall Case Resulting in Broken Bones

by Maurer Law

Slip and fall accidents can lead to devastating and painful injuries for the victim, and they can happen virtually anywhere, even near or at your own residence. In many instances, slip and fall accidents happen because of a property owner’s failure to maintain the premises in a safe and reasonable condition. If you were hurt on a piece of property that someone else owns, controls, or manages, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and damages. At Maurer Law, our Charlotte premises liability lawyers are prepared to help you determine whether you have a right to compensation and the best way to go about pursuing your claim.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a slip and fall accident. The plaintiff in the case slipped and fell on a molded walkway in her condo complex, and she filed a claim for compensation. The plaintiff alleged that she always used a stairway on the side of the building to access her condo. During August 2012, however, the plaintiff was recovering from rotator cuff surgery. The building featured two wooden walkways on either side of the building to get to the parking lot. Each walkway featured a 90-degree turn around a white column.

The building owner contracted with a company to maintain the common areas, including the walkways. In November 2012, one of its employees notified the defendant that one of the walkways was suffering from dangerous mold growth that made the surface slick when wet. She suggested that the defendant power wash the walkways but never received a response. Shortly afterward, the plaintiff used the elevator to go to the ground floor to get her suitcase. She was unaware that it had rained overnight. After turning on the 90-degree angle of the walkway, the plaintiff slipped on the slimy mold and fell, causing her to break her femur.

December 23, 2019

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Dram Shop Wrongful Death Claim Based on Decedent’s Contributory Negligence

by Maurer Law

The holidays are a season for spending time with friends, family, and loved ones often in the form of parties and gatherings that involve food and drink. Alcohol is a common offering at many holiday parties and people usually spend more time going out to restaurants or bars during the season to take advantage of their vacation or time while visiting family. Although this is usually a harmless activity, there are unfortunate situations where someone is overserved and then gets behind the wheel of a vehicle. Drunk drivers cause some of the most devastating and even fatal accidents. At Maurer Law, our Charlotte injury lawyers are prepared to help you fight for the compensation that you deserve after being involved in an accident with a drunk driver.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered a case involving the state’s dram shop liability act. These laws are a set of rules that hold bars, restaurants, and other retailers who serve alcohol to the public liable for overserving a patron who later causes a North Carolina accident. In the case, the court was specifically asked to address a situation where the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. This is a term used to describe a situation where the plaintiff was also negligent at the time of the accident, contributing to the harm that he or she suffered.

The facts of the case are as follows. The defendants were hotel operators who operated a bar in one of their resorts. A husband and wife checked into the hotel and began drinking at the restaurant. Over the course of the evening, they ordered 24 alcoholic beverages. The wife consumed at least ten drinks and was so intoxicated that the hotel workers had to transport her to her hotel room in a wheelchair according to evidence provided during trial. The next morning, the husband found his wife dead on the floor. The cause of death was later determined to be alcohol poisoning.

December 16, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Workers’ Compensation Claim due to Lack of Jurisdiction

by Maurer Law

If you are injured in an accident, one of the first questions that you will need to address is where you should file your claim for compensation. If your injury took place during the course and scope of your employment, then it is governed by the North Carolina workers’ compensation system and must be filed with the workers’ compensation department. If it did not happen in a work-related situation, then you can likely pursue compensation in the regular civil court system. Some factual scenarios raise complex issues regarding whether an injury took place within the course and scope of the injured party’s work duties. Another issue with jurisdiction involves situations where an employee was injured in one state but resides in another state. The state of residency may dispute that it has jurisdiction over the injury. As seasoned Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyers, Maurer Law is ready to help you ensure that your claim is filed in the right place.

In a recent appellate opinion, the North Carolina appellate court was asked to consider whether an injury claim fell within workers’ compensation jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a North Carolina resident, alleged that he was hurt while working as a construction worker in Virginia. The employer was based in Tennessee and hires employees to work on specific projects. The plaintiff had worked for the employer on multiple occasions including pipelines in Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

He originally filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in Virginia and he received benefit payments. The plaintiff later filed a voluntary dismissal of the claim and refiled it in North Carolina with the state’s workers’ compensation commission. The North Carolina workers’ compensation commission denied the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to oversee his claim. The employer then filed a motion to dismiss the claim pending any evidence that the claim belonged in North Carolina. The plaintiff responded by offering evidence of his North Carolina residence and that his wages were deposited into a North Carolina account. The court disagreed with plaintiff and dismissed his claim.