North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

April 5, 2017

Wrongful Death and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in North Carolina

In an interesting 2016 North Carolina appellate case, the plaintiffs appealed a dismissal of their complaint against a hospital and university health care system. The case arose when a man was admitted to the hospital complaining of abdominal pains. He was married to the plaintiff and was the father of two children who were also plaintiffs. He was an active, healthy person.

While at the hospital, the man’s condition got worse and he was transferred to the ICU, put on a ventilator and died. His body was transferred to the university health care system, but it was later unclear from the plaintiff’s complaint whether this was before or after he died. The defendants’ responsive pleadings stated that his deceased body was transferred.

A few years later, the plaintiffs sued the hospital and health care system. They claimed that the decedent had screamed and called out loudly for his wife and kids, but the hospital staff refused to permit them to see him. The wife told staff she had waited too much time to see her husband and staff had sat with her in the waiting room but refused to let her see the man. The plaintiffs also alleged that neither the man nor his wife had given permission for him to be removed from the ventilator.

March 29, 2017

Tractor Trailer Accidents in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In February of 2017, a man was killed in an accident involving two tractor-trailers and a car on North Carolina 11 between Pink Hill and Deep Run. The accident happened just after 1:00 pm. Investigators determined that a tractor-trailer driver tried to enter the highway when he hit another tractor-trailer traveling north on 11. The trailer that was hit drove off the road and hit a passenger car that was stopped on a nearby road. The car spun out, and the trailer overturned onto it.

A 68-year-old man sitting as a passenger inside the car was killed while the car’s driver was injured and taken to a medical center. The drivers of the tractor-trailers were also taken to the hospital. The tractor-trailer driver who caused the accident was charged with misdemeanor death by vehicle.

The criminal charges brought against a tractor-trailer driver who causes an accident are independent of any civil charges that may be brought by the accident victim or his family if he dies. There is a higher burden of proof for criminal cases. Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, while liability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil suit. Liability in the civil suit is expressed through money, whereas guilt in a criminal case can subject the defendant to imprisonment, fines, or other penalties.

March 22, 2017

Bicyclist Killed in a Raleigh Accident

by Maurer Law

Recently, a 55-year-old bicyclist was killed when he rode through a red light in Raleigh before 7 a.m.. He was struck by a North Carolina police officer who was driving a marked SUV.

The bicyclist was bicycling southbound at about 23 mph and trying to cross the street against a red light. The police officer wasn’t injured in the accident, and he wasn’t cited.

All bicyclists in North Carolina are required to follow traffic signals, including red lights. They are also subject to other laws that are exclusively applied to bicyclists. For example, bicyclists must have both a front and rear light when riding in the dark, and these lights need to be visible from 300 feet. In some cases, reflective clothing may be worn instead.

March 15, 2017

Effect of Workers’ Compensation Lien on North Carolina Personal Injury Recovery

by Maurer Law

A recent North Carolina appellate case considered the effect of a workers’ compensation claim on an employee’s recovery in a lawsuit against a third party. The plaintiff was hurt in a car crash while driving in a company truck on a highway. The defendant rear-ended him, and the force caused the truck to hit another vehicle. The plaintiff’s neck was seriously injured.

The unnamed defendants, the employer, and its workers’ compensation insurer accepted the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim and paid him $7,432.13 in workers’ compensation medical benefits and indemnity payments.

He sued the defendant, claiming that the defendant negligently caused the accident. At the trial, evidence was presented on the issue of the workers’ compensation benefits paid to the plaintiff. The judge reduced the recovery by the benefits so that judgment against the at-fault party was $3,576.87 plus interest. This judgment was in compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2(e). However, the judge entered an amended final judgment providing for a judgment in favor of the employer in the amount of $7,423.13. In the first judgment, the amount of benefits was deducted from the plaintiff’s recovery, but in the second, a sum was specifically awarded to the employer. The plaintiff’s damages stayed the same.

March 8, 2017

Recovering Against the At-Fault Driver’s Insurer in a Car Accident Lawsuit?

by Maurer Law

Representing yourself in a car accident lawsuit is rarely a good idea. Often, personal injury law and insurance law have nuances that laypeople may not know, and you can harm your chances of recovery by going it alone.

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, the court considered an accident in which the defendant drove a car into the plaintiff while he stood in the driveway, causing him to suffer serious injuries. The State charged her with crimes, and she pled guilty to Felony Serious Injury by Vehicle and Driving Left of Center. She was sentenced to 16-29 months in prison. However, once she’d served the mandatory minimum, she was released.

The car owner’s insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), offered the plaintiff a $30,000 settlement based on the policy terms. The plaintiff was disappointed by the settlement offer and the release of the defendant, and he sued. He and his wife represented themselves.

March 1, 2017

Nursing Home Negligence Before and After Patient Death in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In a 2016 nursing home negligence case, the plaintiff appealed from a dismissal of claims arising from her mother’s death. The case arose when the mother died in a nursing facility after suffering a fall. Her sister wouldn’t authorize treatment for the injuries from the fall. Her condition worsened, and eventually she died. Her daughter brought a nursing home negligence and wrongful death lawsuit.

She didn’t attach a Rule 9(j) certification to her nursing home negligence complaint. The defendants asked the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for failing to comply with Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies to medical malpractice lawsuits, determining that all of the claims constituted medical malpractice, and therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Rule 9(j) didn’t apply because she wasn’t suing for medical malpractice. The appellate court found that some of the claims were for medical malpractice, while others weren’t, and they arose out of the defendants’ actions after the mother’s death. The 11 claims in the complaint were labeled as wrongful death, medical negligence, negligence, loss of sepulcher, contractual breach, fiduciary duty breach, bad faith, elder abuse, emotional distress of the decedent’s survivors, pain and suffering, and conspiracy. The appellate court determined that some of these claims had to do with the conduct of the defendants before the mother died, and others were related to actions taken after the mother’s death.

February 22, 2017

Appealing a Dog Bite Case in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

If you are bitten by someone else’s dog in North Carolina, you may be able to recover compensation. You may be able to sue for compensation under the dog bite statute, as well as using multiple different doctrines, including negligence, negligence per se (negligence as a matter of law), scienter (also known as common law strict liability), and intentional torts. The dog bite statute only applies to dogs that are at least six months old and are running at large during the night, have previously hurt or killed someone, or were officially declared dangerous or potentially dangerous prior to biting you. The law governing compensation for dog bites is complex in North Carolina.

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, the plaintiff appealed from an order granting summary judgment for the defendant in a dog bite case. The case arose because the defendant’s brother owned two pit bulls that he kept at his other sister’s home in Wadesboro, North Carolina. The defendant had a residence next door to her sister, but neither of them lived in their residences. The sister’s residence didn’t have running water or electricity, so the brother would sometimes use water from the house owned by the defendant to nourish his pit bulls.

In 2013, the plaintiff (a neighbor) was bitten by the pit bulls after they ran from the defendant’s house and attacked him. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the brother and the two sisters. He sued for negligence per se and strict liability. The defendant asked that the lawsuit be dismissed for a failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim but denied the motion with regard to negligence per se.

February 15, 2017

Insurance and Subrogation Rights in North Carolina Car Accident Cases

by Maurer Law

Insurance coverage can be a significant issue in car accident lawsuits. In a recent North Carolina appellate case, an insurer appealed from the trial court’s order dismissing its complaint. The insurer was authorized and licensed to issue insurance policies in North Carolina. Its insured was insured under a business auto policy. This policy had a limit of $100,000.00 in uninsured motorist (“UM”) and underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage through an endorsement. There was also another insured person listed.

The insured was riding as a passenger inside the car owned by the other insured when another driver’s vehicle crossed the center line and crashed into the car. After this, a third vehicle hit the car. Both of the insured people were hurt in the collision and sought medical care. The passenger asserted her medical expenses were more than $58,000, while the driver claimed medical expenses of more than $104,000.00. Five others were also hurt in the accident, but they weren’t involved in the lawsuit.

When the accident happened, the other car was insured under an auto liability insurance policy issued by Integon/GMAC. The policy limits for that policy were $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident.

February 8, 2017

Fatal Underride Accidents in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

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 31, 2017

Naming the Right Plaintiff in a North Carolina Trip and Fall

by Maurer Law

In Williams v. Advance Auto Parts, the North Carolina plaintiff appealed two orders that granted summary judgment to the defendants in a trip and fall case. He argued that the court should have allowed him to amend his complaint to name the correct defendant.

The case arose in 2012 when the plaintiff tripped and fell inside an auto parts store. He submitted his claim for injuries to the third-party administrator that administered the liability policy for the store. In a letter, the third-party administrator named its insured as the auto parts store and denied that the insured was negligent.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in October 2015, naming it incorrectly. In December, the plaintiff filed a notice to amend the complaint, providing a second name for the owner of the store. Civil summons were directed to both of the possible names.