North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

December 9, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses UIM Coverage in Accidents Involving Multiple At-Fault Parties

Insurance issues often arise in motor vehicle accidents especially when multiple drivers, vehicles, and victims are involved in the crash. While you are dealing with your injuries and trying to handle the stress and disruption that the accident has caused in your life, the last thing you probably want to handle is an insurance claim and negotiation process. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Charlotte car accident lawyers is prepared to assist you with ensuring that you are treated fairly throughout this process. Contact us immediately to learn about your potential right to recovery.

A North Carolina appellate opinion provides an example of a common insurance dispute that can arise following a personal injury accident. The main issue in the case involved accidents where there is more than one at-fault driver. The court was asked to decide whether the injured party was required to exhaust only one liability insurance coverage of one of the at-fault motorists in order to trigger the insurer’s obligation to provide underinsured motorist benefits.

In the accident, a truck driver lost control of his vehicle while traveling on a freeway causing it to strike the median barrier and flip. A volunteer firefighter responded to the scene and found that the driver was injured, and that fuel was leaking from the vehicle. The firefighter was later struck by a vehicle that swerved in an attempt to avoid colliding with another vehicle that has slowed suddenly as it approached the area where the accident took place. The firefighter was dragged beneath the vehicle, sustaining severe injuries including broken bones, lacerations, and internal injuries.

November 26, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Fatal Truck Accident Case

by Maurer Law

Truck accidents are a particularly terrifying type of personal injury accident due to the massive size and weight of these vehicles. Although there are laws that govern how trucking operations must run, including routine safety inspections and careful hiring of qualified drivers, accidents still happen. As dedicated Charlotte truck accident lawyers, the attorneys at Maurer Law are ready to help you determine whether you are entitled to compensation following a preventable truck accident situation.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a truck accident case involving the improper loading of freight. The case involved a truck driver who worked for a trucking company. He drove the truck to a loading facility to pick up cargo that was packed onto pallets. The driver instructed the facility on how to load the cargo including instructing them to rearrange the items. he then drove the cargo to a plant. The plant was closed so he returned the next day. Before he left, he checked the cargo and tightened some of the straps. Another driver eventually took over the delivery of the shipment. While driving on the highway, he observed sparks in his side-view mirror and pulled over to determine that one of the items had fallen off the truck.

The decedent in the lawsuit was riding on the back of a motorcycle driving the opposite direction as the truck. The driver saw the sparks and attempted to dodge debris in the road but was unable to. The collision ejected decedent from the motorcycle and an oncoming truck then struck her, causing her to sustain serious injuries. She died later that evening as a result.

November 19, 2019

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

by Maurer Law

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.

November 13, 2019

E-Scooter Accidents are on the Rise in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

Electric scooters have become a popular alternative to many common forms of transportation. They are often a more affordable option and provide greater flexibility in terms of navigating crowded roadways, parking, and fighting morning or evening commutes. For all their benefits, however, there are many risks involved with using an e-scooter as a form of conveyance. For starters, scooters are not as visible as regular passenger vehicles, making them difficult for other motorists to see. A knowledgeable Charlotte motor vehicle accident lawyer can help you determine if you are entitled to compensation following a scooter injury accident.

Recently, North Carolina residents have experienced an uptick in scooter-related injuries. According to an article from Charlotte Observer, there have been 35 injuries reported involving electric scooters throughout Charlotte and Raleigh between January 2018 and May 2019. With 82 total crashes reported in the broader region, e-scooter accidents represented 42% of total accidents. So far, scooter accidents have not resulted in fatalities, but there have been at least eight deaths in the US associated with using a rentable e-scooter between 2017 and now, according to Consumer Reports.

Part of the uptick in accidents may be attributable to an increasing number of companies offering scooter rentals. This makes scooters available to people who may not have the experience or skill necessary to operate the devices safely. Although scooters are far different from passenger vehicles, operators should still use caution when riding them through congested areas and should pay attention to traffic laws. Even if a scooter rider has the right of way, a passing truck or car may not see the scooter or may assume that the scooter will stay on the sidewalk. It is also important to note that scooter riders need a motorcycle license to operate the machines on public roadways and must wear a helmet at all times.

November 5, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Opinion in Right Shoulder Injury Case When the Worker Claimed Change of Condition

by Maurer Law

Injury accidents can result in a wide variety of conditions and disabilities. Some instances are relatively minor but there are occasions in which the victim is left with permanent disabilities that will impact their well-being for the rest of their lives. The workers’ compensation system is designed to provide injured workers with benefit payments and medical expenses reimbursements in the event that they are injured. When a worker’s injury changes over time, however, many insurance companies take this as an opportunity to avoid having to continue paying benefits. The diligent team of Charlotte work injury lawyers at Maurer Law are ready to ensure that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve.

In a recent case, the injured worker suffered injuries to her face, head, neck, and right shoulder during a work-related accident in 1995. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was litigated on numerous occasions during the following two decades to determine which expenses were compensable. An award in 2003 left open the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent partial disability payments for her right shoulder injury until a doctor was able to conclude that the plaintiff reached maximum medical improvement.

The plaintiff underwent several treatments and exams regarding the right shoulder injury. In 2011, the plaintiff filed an occupational disease claim for upper extremity conditions she suffered due to the repetitive nature of her job duties. The commission denied the request and also concluded that she had failed to satisfy the standard of an occupational disease.

October 29, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses The Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule in Misdiagnosis Case

by Maurer Law

A common question that we encounter as seasoned Asheville personal injury lawyers is whether a particular injury accident can be brought forward as a civil claim or whether it must be addressed through North Carolina’s workers’ compensation system. Under the exclusivity rule, if an injury happens during the course and scope of employment, it must be treated as a work injury. This means that the injured worker is barred from bringing a civil claim against his or her employer except in a few very limited scenarios. If you were injured and have questions about the best way to go about receiving the compensation that you need and deserve, we are standing by to assist you.

A recent case discussed the difference between bringing a civil injury claim and a worker’s compensation claim. The plaintiff originally filed a civil claim for negligence against his employer stating that the company nurse diagnosed him in a negligent manner after he suffered a stroke at work. Before filing this action, the plaintiff had also filed a claim with the North Carolina workers’ compensation commission based on the same scenario. The judge in the workers’ compensation claim denied his request for benefits and medical expenses reimbursements on the basis that the injury did not take place at work and did not arise out of the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff did not file an appeal.

In the civil claim, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the facts giving rise to the claim were related to his occupation and therefore should be asserted as a workers’ compensation claim. The lower court denied this motion on the basis that there was no relation between the injury that the plaintiff pled in his complaint and his occupation. The defendants appealed.

October 21, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses Dram Shop Liability in Drunk Driver Personal Injury Accident

by Maurer Law

Motor vehicle accidents are always devastating, but when a drunk driver is to blame the injury can seem even more difficult to accept. There are certain laws that provide ways to hold restaurants, bars, and other establishments that serve alcohol responsible if they overserve someone who leaves the premises and causes an injury accident. These are known as dram shop laws. As seasoned Charlotte drunk driving car accident lawyers, we are ready to help you fight for the compensation that you and your family deserve during this stressful and painful time.

The North Carolina Court of Appeal recently handled a case involving allegations based on dram shop liability. The defendant in the case owned a series of restaurants franchised in different counties throughout North Carolina. The owner disseminated information on how to identify intoxication and prevent it. The co-defendant in the case was a regular customer at one of the locations and between six to seven hours he was served between roughly 13 to 15 alcoholic beverages. Most of the drinks came from one server who’s shift ended before the customer left. The server who replaced her eventually cut off the second defendant from ordering more drinks. The second server ordered food for the customer to eat, which he did.

The customer then left the premises and caused an injury accident on Interstate 26. The plaintiff filed a suit against the restaurant and the customer seeking compensation for his injuries. He also alleged that the restaurant was negligent in supervising its employees, the two servers who provided alcoholic beverages to the customer. The restaurant moved to dismiss the dram shop claim and negligent supervision claim. The court granted dismissal of the negligent supervision claim, but the dram shop claim went to the jury. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to show that the servers were incompetent and that the cause of action was duplicative of the dram shop act.

October 16, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Trip and Fall Supermarket Case based on Open and Obvious Doctrine

by Maurer Law

When it comes to accidents that are due to another person’s negligence, slip and fall cases are one of the most common ways that Charlotte residents can find themselves experiencing serious harm and inconvenience in their lives. The rules regarding premises liability injuries are somewhat complicated, which is why it is important to have a diligent Charlotte personal injury attorney to assist you with all phases of your claim including ensuring that you receive the full amount of compensation that you are owed.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment for the defendant property owner. The plaintiff sued the property owner after reportedly tripping on a crate of tomatoes that was allegedly protruding into the shopping aisle, according to the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant based its motion for summary judgment on the theory that the danger was open and obvious and that the defendant is not liable under premises liability law for open and obvious dangers.

A negligence claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant owed him or her a duty, failed to exercise appropriate care according to that duty and that the breach was the direct and foreseeable cause of any injuries that the plaintiff sustained. Under North Carolina law, a property owner owes all lawful visitors a duty to act with reasonable care. When it comes to a business owner, that duty requires the owner to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe and to provide warnings about any hidden dangers or unsafe conditions that are capable of being identified during a reasonable inspection.

October 8, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Dismisses Negligence Claim based on Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule

by Maurer Law

The North Carolina workers’ compensation system is meant to provide compensation for workers who are injured during the course and scope of employment. This can create some legal issues when it comes to determining whether an injury was work-related or not. If the injury happened in the course and scope of employment, then the worker’s sole remedy for compensation is through the workers’ compensation claims process and not in civil court. If you have been injured and believe that it may be related to your employment or have questions about your right to compensation, contact a seasoned Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyer immediately.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed from a dismissal of her complaint against her employer, asserting a claim for negligence. The lower court determined that the events giving rise to her claim happened in the course and scope of employment and that as a result, the workers’ compensation system was her sole remedy. In the case, the plaintiff suffered from a mental illness and had been out of work for some time. She eventually began work for the employer, a bank. Shortly after receiving a promotion at the bank, the mental illness resurfaced. The bank put the plaintiff on short-term disability as a result of her condition and inability to perform her duties.

The plaintiff eventually returned to work on a limited schedule but was unable to perform the duties that her employer expected. She asked to be transferred, but the request was denied, and her doctor eventually took her out of work and diagnosed her as bipolar.

September 27, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses Public Duty Doctrine in Overdose Fatality Case

by Maurer Law

Drug-related medical emergencies can be stressful situations for everyone involved including first responders. When a first responder fails to follow proper procedures or to take reasonable cautions to ensure that someone who is under the influence receives necessary medical attention, the outcome can be disastrous or even fatal. As seasoned Asheville personal injury lawyers, we have handled numerous cases involving fatalities that result from another person’s negligence. We are standing by and ready to assist you with seeking the compensation that you deserve.

In a recent appellate decision, the court considered whether a trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging negligence and wrongful death against a local sheriff’s office regarding the death of an individual who had taken several prescription pills. The decedent was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car. A 911 call alerted the sheriff’s office and a deputy and EMS responded to the scene. One of the deputies who arrived canceled the EMS call. The decedent asked the deputy to call one of his friends to pick him up. The friend took the decedent home and put him to bed. He was found deceased in the morning.

The decedent’s estate filed a claim alleging that the Sheriff was negligent in failing to establish appropriate procedures for dealing with drug-related medical emergencies, for not allowing paramedics to respond to the scene, for failing to call for further medical assistance, and for calling a friend instead of someone related by marriage or blood. The complaint also alleged that the office was negligent for not training officers on responding to situations involving substances and for a variety of other allegedly negligent acts based on the public duty doctrine.