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.

The defendant had argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by cycling too close to the cyclist in front of her and that the issue of whether she contributed to her own injuries should have gone to the jury. The appellate court rejected this argument on the basis that the evidence was not clear regarding whether she contributed to her injuries and that there were other reasonable inferences that could be drawn regarding her conduct. Furthermore, any evidence that she was following too closely did not also establish that this caused her injuries. She may have hit the wire regardless of whether anyone was in front of her.

The appellate court did, however, conclude that the lower court should not have instructed the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. This doctrine excuses a party’s actions that may normally be perceived as negligent where the party was acting in response to a sudden emergency that the party did not cause. It only applies to conduct that occurs after the emergency arises. The appellate court concluded that the evidence in the record did not support this instruction being given to the jury. The defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to remove the wire did not cause the plaintiffs to potentially fail to keep a proper lookout or to travel at a safe speed, for example. The doctrine would apply only if the plaintiffs were keeping a proper lookout and a sudden emergency like a car turning into their lane caused them to swerve into the wire.

If you were injured and believe that you may be entitled to compensation, contact our seasoned team of Charlotte bicycle accident lawyers as soon as possible. We will meet with you in a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we can assist you with asserting your rights. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

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.

Drivers must follow certain laws when sharing the road with bicyclists in North Carolina. A driver is permitted to pass a bicyclist in instances when a bicyclist is traveling the same way, going straight, and not signaling a left turn or turning left.

The driver who passes a bicyclist is supposed to provide at least four feet between his car and the bicyclist, or completely drive in the left lane. A driver whose actions require a bicyclist to leave his travel lane to avoid a crash or causes an injury by traveling too close to a bicyclist will face a $200 fine.

When a driver causes a bicyclist to crash resulting in property damage or personal injuries, he’ll be fined $500, unless there is more than $5000 in injuries or property damage, in which case he’ll be fined $750. A bicyclist is allowed to point to the right with his right hand in order to signal a right turn.

A bicyclist who fails to follow laws applicable to bicyclists or fails to follow traffic signals and suffers injuries or death, as described above, will not be able to recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit. In North Carolina, courts follow the doctrine of contributory negligence, under which a plaintiff is barred from recovering damages if he is partially to blame for an accident. This doctrine also bars an accident victim’s family from winning a wrongful death lawsuit if the accident victim died as a result of negligence.

Under North Carolina Statutes section 28A-18-2, a wrongful death is one caused by the wrongful neglect, act or default of someone else. This could include a death caused by someone’s negligence in driving too close to the bicyclist, or otherwise negligently striking the bicyclist. For example, if the driver in the accident described above had actually run a red light and hit the bicyclist in question as a result, he might have become liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.

In a wrongful death lawsuit, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate is allowed to sue an at-fault driver in civil court for damages arising from the death. This civil proceeding is separate from any criminal charges that might be filed against a driver who was at fault for the death of the bicyclist. In a wrongful death lawsuit, damages are expressed in terms of compensatory money damages.

A wrongful death claim arising out of a bicycle accident caused by someone else’s negligence can seek damages on behalf of the decedent’s estate as well as the decedent’s survivors. In some cases, the decedent has an estate plan that names a personal representative, but in other cases, the court may appoint a personal representative.

If your loved one is killed in a bicycle accident in North Carolina, Maurer Law may be able to represent you in a wrongful death lawsuit. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

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.

The plaintiff testified at trial about her injuries as well as prior episodes of back pain. The defendant testified that she had slowed to 30 mph when she saw the bicycle and drove over the centerline into the left lane. She also testified she was within 2-3 feet of the plaintiff at the time of passing.

The plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the question of negligence. The court denied her motion. The jury found the plaintiff wasn’t injured by the defendant’s negligent conduct. Judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and moved for a new trial. She argued that both parties’ testimony showed that the impact had at least somewhat injured the plaintiff. The trial court denied these motions, and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s decision to overtake and pass her bicycle constituted a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-149(a) and was therefore negligence per se.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-149(a), a car that overtakes another vehicle going the same way must pass at least two feet to the left and not drive to the right again until it is safely clear of the vehicle it passed. The appellate court explained that violating this law in passing a vehicle is negligence.

However, the defendant had presented evidentiary conflicts, such as whether the defendant slowed her car and moved across the centerline and whether the mirror could have hit the plaintiff if the plaintiff was still able to pedal. Since there was conflicting evidence about the defendant passing the plaintiff, a directed verdict was improper. It was up to the jury to decide whose version of events to believe, so it was proper to deny the claim that the statutory violation was negligence per se.

If you were injured in a bicycle accident, the experienced personal injury attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.