North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

November 15, 2016

Intervening Negligence by a Plaintiff Motorcyclist in North Carolina

In some motorcycle accident cases in North Carolina, intervening negligence by the plaintiff becomes an issue. An intervening negligent act is a new legal cause that breaks the connection between the injuries and the original cause, and therefore it becomes solely responsible for the injuries.

In Pope v. Bridge Broom, Inc., a North Carolina appellate court considered a wrongful death case involving a motorcycle accident. The decedent had been riding a motorcycle with her husband in Charlotte. The defendant was street sweeping, using four vehicles driving southbound. The defendant’s employee drove a pickup truck at the tail end of the street sweeper, which was supposed to absorb a rear-end impact. There was a warning sign on the truck. The truck was completely in the left land of travel.

The decedent and her husband were riding in clear weather. The driver of a van came up to the street sweeping operation and came to a total stop behind the pickup. He signaled and moved to the center lane. Another driver hit the brakes to let him move over. The husband of the decedent came up in the left lane on his motorcycle, and the husband believed he had to move over to avoid the defendant’s truck, which was just finishing up its street sweeping. When he moved, he braked, but the motorcycle slid for 195 feet and fell over. The decedent was thrown from the motorcycle and died.

November 15, 2016

Wrongful Death and Contributory Negligence in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In North Carolina, a plaintiff’s right to recover compensation in a personal injury or wrongful death action is barred upon a finding of contributory negligence. This means that the jury will look at whether a plaintiff’s own negligence or breach of duty was a contributing factor to an accident that causes his injuries or death.

Scheffer v. Dalton is a North Carolina wrongful death case. The plaintiff in the case was the administrator of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer’s estate, who sued the defendant, claiming the defendant’s negligence caused the wrongful death of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer. The defendant answered that Scheffer’s own negligence contributed to the accident, barring recovery. The plaintiff’s reply claimed that the other driver had the last clear chance to keep from hurting the man who was killed.

Scheffer drove a moped and worked at a bike shop. One day in 2010, he left the bike shop on his moped. The original headlight on the moped had broken, and the decedent had installed a bicycle light in its place. He often charged the light’s batteries at his place of employment, but there was no evidence as to whether he did this that day.

November 15, 2016

Slip and Fall on Black Ice in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In North Carolina, property owners must use reasonable care to make their property safe for lawful visitors. Whether a property owner’s actions to make the property safe are reasonable are judged against the actions of reasonably prudent people under the circumstances.

There’s no duty to safeguard a lawful visitor from dangers that are either known to him or so obvious and apparent the owner can reasonably expect a visitor to discover them. Property owners are not expected to ensure their visitors’ safety, however. If you suffer a slip and fall, it is important to photograph the area and figure out which dangerous condition caused your fall, as illustrated by the following case.

In Skipper v. Wayne Oil Company, a North Carolina plaintiff appealed after the court granted summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a foreman from Tennessee who installed cell phone towers and was building one in North Carolina. When he left his hotel on the morning of the accident, he crossed the parking lot of the defendant’s gas station. The parking lot didn’t look slippery, so he went into the convenience store and bought various items. As he left and returned the way he came, he slipped and rolled his ankle. He fell. The pain worsened as he walked back to the hotel.

November 15, 2016

Surveillance Footage in a North Carolina Slip and Fall

by Maurer Law

Slip and falls are common in retail stores, but these cases can be hard to prove in North Carolina and elsewhere. Among other things, an injured plaintiff needs to establish that the property owner breached its duty to keep the store free from hazards and that either the hazard was created by the store, the store had actual notice of the hazard, or the store had constructive notice of the hazard.

Usually, constructive notice is established by showing a substance was on the floor of the store for long enough that in the course of exercising reasonable care, the storeowner should have discovered it.

In some cases, surveillance footage can be used to establish the amount of time a substance was on the floor or how the substance came to be on the floor. Sometimes surveillance can be powerful evidence to convince a jury of constructive notice. However, as part of its business practices, the court may erase and reuse old surveillance footage. Therefore, it is critical to contact an attorney as soon as possible after a slip and fall so that evidence can be preserved. It can also be helpful to take pictures that can be used as evidence of the dangerous condition.

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.

November 15, 2016

Employer Responsibility in a North Carolina Motorcycle Accident Case

by Maurer Law

In some cases, an employer can be held responsible for an employee’s negligence in a motor vehicle accident case. Lewis v. Morgan involved a charter bus company run by a husband and wife. The company employed four drivers, and occasionally the husband drove buses too. Some drivers had keys to the gate where buses were parked. If a driver who didn’t have a key needed a bus in the morning, it was the husband’s responsibility to unlock the gate so that the driver could get the bus for work.

In 2011, one of the company’s drivers called the husband and wife and asked for the gate to be opened so that he could pick people up at their hotels and drive them to the offices of a business with which the company had a contract. The following morning, the husband drove over to open the gate for the driver. However, as he turned left, he hit the plaintiff, who was riding his motorcycle the opposite way. The plaintiff was seriously injured, and the husband was cited for failure to yield.

The plaintiff sued the husband, the charter bus company, and another company owned by the couple. He claimed that the husband’s negligent driving injured him and that the charter bus company should be vicariously liable for his injuries. He also argued that the corporate veil between the charter bus company and the other company owned by the couple should be pierced. The husband’s attorney denied fault in his answer, but at deposition, the husband admitted liability.

November 15, 2016

Negligence Per Se in a North Carolina Bicycle Accident Lawsuit

by Maurer Law

In Safron v. Elaine Helena Council, a North Carolina appellate court considered a bicycle accident case. The plaintiff was a graduate student riding her bicycle in Orange County. The defendant, meanwhile, was driving on the same road in her car. When the defendant saw the plaintiff bicyclist, she moved into the left lane and tried to pass. She heard her passenger side mirror drop and stopped her car. The plaintiff pedaled onward for a bit before stopping.

The defendant gave her contact information to the plaintiff, who was at that time standing by her bike. She offered to give the plaintiff a ride home, but the plaintiff decided to wait for a friend to pick her up. The plaintiff didn’t get medical care for a bruise but instead treated it with compresses and an over the counter pain reliever. Later, she went to the UNC student medical center, where they told her to keep doing what she was doing. However, two months later, she started to suffer pain episodes and needed treatment from a physical therapist and doctors.

She sued the defendant for carelessly and recklessly maneuvering her car while passing the plaintiff’s bike. She asked for medical expenses, property damage, lost income, and pain and suffering. She and the defendant contended damages were contested, but only the defendant claimed that the issue of negligence was contested.

November 15, 2016

Landlord Liability for Dog Bite Injuries in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

In Stephens v. Covington, a North Carolina appellate court considered a dog bite case. The Hewetts leased a home from the defendant’s husband, Mr. Covington, who knew they owned a Rottweiler. The houses were close together, so the Hewetts and Mr. Covington contacted animal control about safety measures. At the direction of Animal Control, they posted signs and fenced and gated an area in the backyard.

Before they bought the property, the dog got so large that the Hewetts began to keep him only in the fenced area. The plaintiff was eight years old when he visited the Hewetts’ nine-year-old son. During the visit, the plaintiff followed the Hewetts’ son into the fenced area. While they were standing there, the dog bit the plaintiff in the leg. The Hewetts’ son hit the dog with a stick to get him to let go, but he couldn’t get him to let go and went to get his mom. The dog bit the plaintiff again in the shoulder and again wouldn’t let go.

The mother released the eight-year-old from the dog, and a neighbor grabbed the boy and pulled him over the fence away from the dog. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries. Animal Control investigated and got statements. The dog was kept quarantined at the animal shelter, and the Hewetts decided they would euthanize him.

November 15, 2016

Discovery of Truck Driver’s Medical Records in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

Carrazana v. Western Express, Inc. concerned a trucking accident that happened in 2013 in North Carolina. Michael Carter, a truck driver employed by Western Express, stopped his tractor-trailer in the emergency lane of I-95. The plaintiff was driving in the right lane. Another truck driver (Tyndall) was driving a tractor-trailer northbound on I-95.

The plaintiff later alleged that Carter negligently pulled in front of him without yielding the right of way and that he crashed into Carter, and Tyndall was also negligent such that he couldn’t move into the left lane to avoid the collision. Carter was cited for an unsafe movement, but Tyndall wasn’t cited.

The plaintiff also alleged that the trucking companies that employed Carter and Tyndall were vicariously liable for their negligence. He also claimed that Western Express had negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained Carter and that he’d suffered catastrophic injuries due to the accident.

August 10, 2016

Pre-Existing Injuries and Personal Injury Claims: It Doesn’t Always Have To Hurt.

by Maurer Law

Although we handle most types of injury and death cases, it is usually a serious car wreck that brings a new client to our doorstep. Some of these new clients have already spoken with another Raleigh injury lawyer only to have their case turned down because of a pre-existing similar injury. They have found (usually during a short phone call) that as soon as the words “pre-existing injury” are mentioned, the conversion is pretty much over.

At Maurer Law, we meet each new prospective client in person and conduct a thorough intake interview. When we hear the words “pre-existing injury”, we do not shy away, we dive in. We often find that if we carefully listen to the client and ask the right questions, we might just be able to take a case that appeared unwinnable and discover that it is a diamond in the rough, if you will. It goes without saying that we cannot do much for a client unless they are open and honest about any pre-existing conditions they may have.In a case involving a pre-existing condition (usually a prior similar injury or degenerative condition… bad back, bad knee, etc.), the challenge for an attorney is to convince an insurance adjuster that the new accident either made it worse or reactivated the problem which had been symptom free for a while. Adjusters are skeptical by nature, as are insurance defense attorneys. I can say that because I used to be one and worked with adjusters every day for years. One of their favorite arguments is that “the wreck didn’t cause your client any problem he didn’t already have.”

Defense attorneys will often go on a “seek and destroy mission.” Quite simply, they will seek evidence of UNDISCLOSED pre-existing conditions (usually found in old primary care doctor records) and when they find them, they will use it to destroy a plaintiff’s case. It is a remarkably simple strategy, and a very successful one because the plaintiff’s credibility will be dealt an often fatal blow upon such a discovery.