North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

September 23, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim in Fatal High School Football Practice Accident

As seasoned Charlotte personal injury lawyers, we have seen how some of the most painful and damaging injuries can happen in sudden accidents that no one would have anticiapted. Regardless of the reasons behind the accident, if you are the victim of someone else’s negligence you may be entitled to compensation in a personal injury lawsuit for your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Contact Maurer Law today to learn more about how we may be able to assist you.

In a recent lawsuit, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a claim in which a person reportedly died as the result of an accident involving a four-wheeler that was used at a high school football team practice location. The plaintiffs in the action sued the school for negligent infliction of emotional distress claiming that it was foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s allegedly negligent conduct that they would suffer emotional distress at witnessing their teammate and friend die.

The high school team had access to the vehicle and used it routinely to move items during and after practice. All players were authorized to use the vehicle even though they were minors and despite the fact that many of them were not given appropriate safety and operation training for the device.

September 16, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Considers Case Where Employer Offered Unsuitable Temporary Employment to Injured Worker

by Maurer Law

If you are hurt on the job, you may suffer a temporary injury that allows you to still perform some tasks. In this situation, the employer may be required to offer you a position that fits your disability. Determining the tasks that you can safely perform, however, can be difficult. In some instances, the employer may not offer an appropriate job and may argue that your refusal to take the job is a refusal that warrants revoking your benefits. As dedicated Charlotte work injury lawyers we are ready to help you fight for the treatment that you deserve.

In a recent case, the employee allegedly hurt himself at work when he slipped and fell. He sought medical treatment, which his employer paid for through its insurance carrier. He underwent additional treatment with no improvement, eventually requiring surgery. Several months later, the worker was designated as having reached maximum medical improvement with certain limitations including permanent work restrictions on what he could lift. During the following weeks, the plaintiff continued to complain of pain.

The worker eventually suggested that his truck driver position was beyond the scope of his work limitations, so the employer provided him with a position as part of the loading crew and assured him that it would not conflict with the lifting restrictions. The description, however, said that the worker must be required to lift 50 pounds on occasion, use his or her hands and wrists, and grasp objects repetitively. The worker attempted to perform these tasks, but experienced pain quickly.

September 10, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in Child Wrongful Death Case

by Maurer Law

Losing a child is perhaps the most horrific thing that a parent can experience, particularly if it happens as the result of another person’s carelessness. Although no amount of money can truly repair the damage and pain that your family has experienced as a result of the sudden loss, it can help you cope with the financial burden associated with the loss. As seasoned Charlotte personal injury lawyers handling wrongful death cases, we are prepared to help you determine whether your family is entitled to compensation from the person who caused your child’s death.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiffs left the minor child in the care of the defendants, who ran an unlicensed childcare facility in their home. They regularly cared for the plaintiffs’ child. On one occasion, the defendants reportedly had a loaded 12-gauge shotgun on the kitchen table that the children were able to access. One of the defendants had not completed a firearms safety course. One of the defendants’ children discharged the shotgun in the direction of the plaintiffs’ child, resulting in her death.

The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death claim and included claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff’s father heard about the shooting over a CB radio and saw the ambulance pass him, knowing that his daughter was inside. He followed the ambulance to the hospital and saw his daughter being unloaded. He was told at that time that his child died in the ambulance. The mother of the child taught at a school nearby and immediately came to the hospital where she held her daughter’s lifeless body until she was required to leave.

August 30, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Decision in UIM Dispute Involving Fatality

by Maurer Law

As Asheville car accident lawyers, we often handle cases involving complex insurance policies and questions about whether coverage will be provided for an accident. If you have severe injuries following a crash that wasn’t your fault, you probably also have severe medical expenses, lost wages, and other expenses associated with the accident. In addition to helping you assert your right to compensation from the driver who injured you, we are prepared to help you ensure that insurance companies treat you and your family fairly during this challenging time.

A recent case from the North Carolina Court of Appeal highlights some of the key aspects of knowing your rights in an insurance policy dispute. The plaintiff in the case filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s liability to the defendant for an automobile accident in which the defendant was injured and his wife was killed. The decedent had an insurance policy that provided underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person or $300,000 per accident. The other driver involved in the accident had an insurance policy providing coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident.

The other driver’s insurer tendered the full policy limits of $100,000 per accident divided among the four parties in the accident. The decedent’s insurer paid the surviving husband $68,000, which represented the $100,000 policy limit minus the amount he received from the other driver’s insurer. It also paid a sum to the decedent’s estate. The surviving husband argued in court that he was entitled to receive UIM policy limits. The husband ultimately won this argument and the insurer appealed.

August 22, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Ruling in Case Involving Mold Exposure in Rental Residence

by Maurer Law

If you rent an apartment or house, you place your trust in the property owner that he or she has conducted proper inspections and ensured that the premises is free from dangerous conditions like mold. Certain types of mold can pose a serious threat to you and your family’s health and unfortunately, mold can grow in the walls or under floorboards where it is impossible to detect without high tech equipment. If you were exposed to mold or another dangerous condition as the result of a landowner’s neglect you may be entitled to compensation. Call our Charlotte premises liability lawyers today to learn more about how we can assist you.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal reviewed a case in which the plaintiff alleged that the owners of a property that he rented failed to keep it suitable for habitation according to N.C. Gen. Stat Section 42-42. According to this provision, landlords must comply with several requirements regarding the maintenance and habitability of rental properties, including keeping common areas in a safe condition, ensuring that electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and other facilities are in good working order, and providing smoke alarms.

He also alleged that the defendant’s failure to inspect or maintain the premises was negligent and reckless conduct and that the owner made negligent misrepresentations about the property’s condition.

August 16, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for City in Premises Liability Case where Toddler Suffered Severe Burns on Metal Skateboard Ramp

by Maurer Law

One of the most common activities for families with children is to take their kids to the park. When city officials fail to maintain a public park in a safe condition, however, the children can face devastating injuries or even death. If you or your child were injured on public property, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and expenses. Bringing a premises liability lawsuit against a government entity can be more complex due to statutes providing government officials with immunity from liability in some instances. Contact our Charlotte premises liability lawyers today to start learning about your potential case.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case in which a child who was 18 months old suffered severe burn injuries when he fell on a metal skate park ramp that had become hot from sun exposure. The parents brought a complaint against the city that maintains the skate park and the manufacturer of the metal ramp alleging that the metal ramp was a dangerous condition and that the city and the manufacturer failed to provide a warning that the metal ramp could become dangerously hot due to sun exposure.

The manufacturer filed an answer asserting several affirmative defenses, including intervening negligence of a third party, the babysitter who was supervising the minor at the skate park. The city raised similar defenses and alleged that the plaintiffs did not establish a viable claim against the city. The city later filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that it was entitled to immunity under N.C. Gen. Stat. section 99E-21, et seq., and that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish negligence or gross negligence on the part of the city. The lower court granted the motion and the plaintiffs appealed.

August 8, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Dismisses Negligence Action Against University in Student Assault Based on Lack of Foreseeability

by Maurer Law

In certain situations, a property owner has a duty to protect you from dangers that may be caused by third-parties, such as people committing criminal acts. This type of liability can be tricky, especially when it is not clear whether the property owner owed you a duty to protect you or whether the harm that you received was foreseeable. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Charlotte personal injury lawyers has handled a number of premises liability cases and we are ready to assist you in determining whether you are owed compensation for your injuries.

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a student at a university who was the victim of a prank in the dormitory. A group of students placed a cup of water above the plaintiff’s door so that it would spill on the plaintiff when he opened the door. The plaintiff confronted the group of students about the prank and the interaction became violent. Five students were suspended as a result of the altercation and the plaintiff along with his roommate were moved to another dorm. Eventually, the plaintiff withdrew from the university and enrolled elsewhere.

The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit against the university and its Board of Trustees, alleging that the university negligently caused the plaintiff to experience emotional distress and sought punitive damages for its alleged willful and wanton disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. The university moved for summary judgment and the lower court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed on the basis that he had established that the university owed him a duty of care and failed to act according to that duty, and that he suffered damages as a direct and foreseeable result of that failure.

July 30, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Defense Verdict in Aquarium Trip and Fall Injury Case

by Maurer Law

Accidents can happen anywhere, including public places. When it comes to suing an entity for injuries that you sustained in a slip and fall accident, in general, you must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed on the property and that it failed to make the condition safe or to provide a warning. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Asheville personal injury lawyers is prepared to help you explore whether you are entitled to compensation and the best way to go about securing the settlement or judgment that you deserve. We know how overwhelming this situation can be for you and your family, especially if you are suffering from painful injuries. Don’t wait to contact us because time may be running out on your claim.

In a recent case, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries when she fell at an aquarium in Pine Knoll Shores during a Halloween-themed event. She required a hip replacement as a result of the fall. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the common areas of the property and in failing to warn people about the presence of a dangerous condition. The defendant denied the allegations and argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Initially, the assigned Commissioner concluded that the defendant was negligent, and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. It awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of roughly $72,000.

The defendant appealed the matter to the Full Commission, which reversed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed on the premises.

July 22, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Denial of Workers’ Compensation Claim for Failure to Consider Medical Evidence

by Maurer Law

A key aspect of any workers’ compensation case is showing that your injury arose from the course and scope of your employment. If you are unable to demonstrate this, then you will not be awarded benefits and medical expense reimbursements. The diligent team of Charlotte work injury lawyers at Maurer Law have guided countless individuals through the benefit claims process and we are prepared to assist you.

In a recent claim, a worker was a transporter who was responsible for loading 100-pound to 200-pound tires into a tractor-trailer and delivering them. Sometimes he would unload the tires himself and he would make anywhere between four and 12 deliveries each day. Reportedly, while making a delivery in 2015, a tire fell from the truck and hit him in the chest. It bounced and hit him in the chest again. He was later taken to an urgent care center. It was later determined that he suffered an aortic dissection and collapsed lung, requiring him to be admitted to the ICU.

As a result of his injury, plaintiff’s physician instructed him that he would not be able to lift more than 40-pounds indefinitely. The doctor’s medical opinion concluded that the plaintiff was permanently disabled and incapable of returning to work.

July 13, 2019

North Carolina Court Discusses Retaliatory Termination for Seeking Workers’ Compensation Benefits

by Maurer Law

When someone suffers an injury on the job, they may worry about whether their employer will retaliate against them if they file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. This system is designed to ensure that you have the financial support you need to cope with your injury and inability to work following the injury or accident. The rules make it clear that an employer cannot treat an employee unfairly or unjustly because he or she has requested benefits. If you were injured at work, our knowledgeable team of Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyers is standing by to help you secure your right to benefits.

In a recent case, the plaintiff was reportedly employed as a police officer from February 2009 until he was terminated in January 2016. The plaintiff filed a civil action claiming that the termination was a retaliatory response to his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. As background, the police department received a grant to purchase two police motorcycles as long as they were used regularly. The plaintiff was hired to fill one of the motorcycle positions.

Sometime in 2015, Plaintiff’s supervisor noticed that the plaintiff was not using the motorcycle regularly. The plaintiff informed the supervisor that it was too hot that day. The supervisor later sent an email to the plaintiff instructing him to ride his motorcycle every day. One month later, the plaintiff was hospitalized for heat-related symptoms while riding his motorcycle at work. The plaintiff filed a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits for this medical emergency.