One reason for this is the speed at which the vehicles are traveling. A city street may be complex and confusing, but a low-speed accident is less likely to lead to fatal injuries. Therefore, even if there were more crashes in the city, far more of them would be fender benders and other minor incidents. But drivers on rural roads are often traveling at 50 or 60 mph, when fatal injuries are much more common.

Medical care is further away

Another key component in this issue is that drivers often do not receive medical care as quickly in a rural car crash.

For one thing, a remote accident may have very few witnesses, so it could take time before anyone calls 911. Even after they do, if the nearest hospital is a half an hour away, it is going to take time for emergency crews to respond to that crash. Once they arrive, they may only be able to offer a certain level of treatment on the scene, so it takes more time to drive the injured victim to the hospital or airlift them to a nearby medical center.

People sometimes suffer serious injuries that could become fatal if they do not receive prompt treatment. In the city, with the hospital only minutes away, they may get this treatment and survive. But the same injuries could prove fatal in a rural accident because of all of these logistical delays.

Compensation for a wrongful death

In a wrongful death case, family members may be able to seek compensation for medical bills, lost future wages, funeral costs, burial costs and much more. It is important for them to know exactly what options they have if another driver’s negligence caused the accident.

Understanding the most common types of catastrophic injuries in car accidents may help you recognize the severity of an incident and know what steps to take afterward.

Traumatic brain injuries

Traumatic brain injuries, or TBI, are some of the most devastating injuries that can occur in a car accident. A TBI can range from a mild concussion to a severe injury that causes long-term cognitive impairment, memory loss, and difficulty with motor functions. 

Treatment for TBI may involve surgeries, physical therapy, and significant lifestyle adjustments. Survivors of severe TBIs often experience permanent disabilities, making recovery a challenging and prolonged process.

Spinal cord injuries

Spinal cord injuries can lead to paralysis, either partial or complete, and often cause life-changing consequences for those involved in accidents. These injuries occur when the spinal cord suffers damage, typically from direct trauma during a car crash. 

North Carolina law recognizes spinal cord injuries as catastrophic because they frequently cause permanent disabilities, such as paraplegia or quadriplegia. People sustaining such injuries may require ongoing medical attention, including surgeries, rehabilitation, and adaptive devices for mobility.

Severe burn injuries

Severe burns are another common catastrophic injury in car accidents, especially in cases involving fires or explosions. The heat from a crash, combined with fuel and other chemicals, can result in deep burns that may require immediate medical attention. 

These injuries often lead to disfigurement, nerve damage, and the possibility of amputation in extreme cases. North Carolina hospitals offer specialized burn care, but the healing process is lengthy and often painful.

Other types of traumatic injuries in car accidents

Car accidents can cause several other types of traumatic injuries that can significantly impact a person’s health and quality of life. Some of the other traumatic injuries that can result from car accidents include:

• Fractured bones
• Internal damage to vital organs
• Dislocated joints
• Soft tissue injuries, such as severe whiplash

These types of injuries, along with the more severe ones mentioned earlier, highlight the wide range of potential damages that can result from a car accident. Individuals with any of these injuries may require ongoing medical care and rehabilitation to recover fully.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered whether the trial court made a reversible error when it granted a motion for a new trial in a case involving a car accident. The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that he was rear-ended by the defendant while his car was stopped at a red light. The jury concluded that the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and awarded $500 in damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. More specifically, the plaintiff challenged statements made to the jury asking it to consider the financial impact of a verdict on the defendant’s finances and statements indicating that the defendant did not have liability insurance to assist with paying a judgment. The court granted the motion for a new trial and the defendant appealed.

Before the appellate court can review the merits of an appeal, however, it must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The defendant in this case acknowledged that his appeal was interlocutory. This means that it was an appeal coming before a final disposition in the case. The appellate court noted that because the motion for a new trial only granted a new trial on the issue of damages, it was not appealable. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 7A-27(b)(3) specifically provides that motions granting partial new trials are not eligible for appeal.

The appellate court did not find any other reason in the defendant’s appellate brief to proceed with reviewing the lower court’s grant of a new trial, such as showing that a substantial right would be affected if the defendant’s appeal was not heard.  In this instance, the defendant would need to wait until there was a final order in the matter to file his appeal. Based on this, the appellate court dismissed the appeal.

Car accidents can be one of the most stressful situations that you will experience in your life especially if you suffer painful injuries or permanent disabilities. You may also be dealing with disruptions in your daily life like being unable to work or perform childcare. While you are busy coping with your injuries, our seasoned team of Charlotte car accident lawyers will assist you with your personal injury lawsuit. To schedule a free consultation call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

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.

The truck driver’s employer carried a motor vehicle insurance policy that provided liability coverage limits of $1 million. The second driver that struck the firefighter carried an insurance policy with liability coverage of $50,000. The firefighter held two policies that each provided uninsured motorist coverage totaling $300,000 and $100,000 respectively. The firefighter sought underinsured motorist benefits, but his insurer argued that because the other policies had not been triggered it was too early for it to provide underinsured motorist benefits.

The court ultimately concluded that only one liability insurance coverage policy must be exhausted to trigger an insurer’s obligation to provide underinsured motorist coverage where an injury accident involves multiple at-fault parties. The court reasoned that an insured should not be required to sue several parties and litigate the outcome of those efforts while waiting to obtain underinsured motorist benefits just because there are other at-fault parties who also have auto insurance policies. This type of outcome would require insured persons with underinsured motorist policies to wait in limbo to obtain the benefits that they are owed.

If you were injured in a car accident you may be entitled to insurance benefits as well as compensation from the person who caused you harm. This is often a long and complex process that can be incredibly stressful for an injured party, especially if they have never been involved in a car accident situation. Our team of seasoned Charlotte personal injury lawyers provides a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we may be able to assist you. Contact us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

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.

On review, the appellate court began by reviewing some of the rules regarding UIM coverage. If a court is faced with a question of how much UIM coverage is available, the court must first assess whether the coverage is even available. If it is, the court must then determine how much the parties seeking coverage are eligible to receive based on two factors. First, the number of claimants in the litigation who are seeking coverage under the UIM policy, as well as whether the negligent driver has a policy that has been exhausted according to the per-person and per-accident caps.

Based on this rule and the evidence in the record, the appellate concluded that the lower court properly awarded UIM benefits to the surviving husband. There were only two parties seeking benefits, the husband and the decedent’s estate, and the negligent driver’s policy had been exhausted.

If you were injured in a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation. At Maurer Law, our team of diligent Asheville car accident attorneys is waiting to assist you with navigating the legal process and the insurance claims process. We understand how stressful this time can be for you and your family particularly if you are suffering from painful injuries or mourning the unnecessary and sudden loss of a loved one. To schedule a free consultation, please call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started. Don’t wait, time may be running out on your claim.

The plaintiff’s father asked him to slow down, and he stopped at most 40 feet from the tree. The father turned the hazard lights on and called his mother to ask her to bring a chainsaw, so he could remove the tree. He also told the plaintiff to get across the tree and try to slow cars down while waiting for the mom to arrive. The plaintiff climbed onto the top of the tree and asked his dad for gloves because he’d gotten pinesap on his hands.

The plaintiff stood on the tree and waved his arms at a car that was approaching. The father would later testify he never got down from the tree and was acting like a teenager because he thought the other driver would stop. The father told him to jump down, but when the plaintiff tried to jump, his pants caught on a tree limb.

The defendant was driving a truck from the other direction, and as he got to a curve in the road, he was blinded by sunlight hitting his windshield and causing a glare. He moved his foot toward the brake and reached for the sun visor. He didn’t realize there was a tree in the road or see the plaintiff until he hit the tree. The tree branch hit the plaintiff in the head, and he was thrown onto the road on his back, unconscious. He was bleeding from the ears and airlifted to the hospital. He was treated for skull fractures and a swollen brain. He didn’t remember the days before the accident or the time in the hospital.

He sued the defendant, claiming the defendant was negligent. The defendant raised a number of defenses, including contributory negligence, and later moved for summary judgment. The lower court granted summary judgment for the defendant.

The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court explained that summary judgment is rarely appropriate when negligence or contributory negligence is alleged. However, it could be appropriate if the plaintiff’s forecast of evidence establishes contributory negligence as a matter of law, or if it fails to show negligence.

The plaintiff argued that even if he was negligent, the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. He also argued his IQ fell into the category of mild mental retardation, changing the ordinary standard of care such that the jury should decide if he acted with the degree of care he could perceive based on diminished mental capacity. The appellate court disagreed.

The record didn’t include enough evidence to show the plaintiff lacked the ability to avoid a clear danger, so it found that the plaintiff was subject to the universal rule that everybody who has the ability to use ordinary care for his own safety is required by law to do so. If he failed to do so and contributed to his own injuries, he will be found contributorily negligent. It noted that somebody whose mental faculties are reduced, but who is not totally insane, is capable of using the standard of care of somebody of similar mental capacity under the same circumstances. The plaintiff in this case claimed a lower standard of care, but the appellate court found his low IQ wasn’t factually similar to senility or diminished mental capacity. He held a valid driver’s license and was a good driver who drove his younger siblings without being supervised. He was 18 at the time of the accident and, in spite of his head injuries, got a high school diploma the next spring. He was an experienced driver familiar with those roads.

The appellate court also rejected his last clear chance argument, since for that argument, he had to forecast evidence that if the defendant had kept a reasonable and proper lookout, he would have discovered the plaintiff’s helpless peril in time to avoid hurting him by using reasonable care. A plaintiff is considered in helpless peril if his prior contributory negligence put him in a position from which he is powerless to extract herself. The last clear chance doctrine isn’t applicable if the injured person is always in control of the danger and chooses to take a risk. In this case, the plaintiff was goofing off in the tree, even though they could hear the truck pipes going up the hill.

The judgment was affirmed.

If you have been harmed due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The plaintiff sued, claiming negligence by the defendant driver and alleging that this caused her injuries. The complaint also alleged another defendant owned a car driven by the defendant at the time of the accident. The complaint alleged the correct owner of the car and stated she was also liable to the plaintiff for her injuries. The court issued a summons.

The plaintiff filed an affidavit of service, claiming that service had been completed by mailing a complaint and civil summons to the defendant driver at his address by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Someone had printed the name “Phillip Park Ja” or “Phillip Parker Jr.” on the form.

The defendant driver asked for an extension of time to serve an answer. This motion was granted. He served his motion and claimed there was insufficient service of process and the statute of limitations operated as a defense. The plaintiff served discovery on him. The defendant responded by asking for a time extension, and the court agreed. The plaintiff asked the clerk to issue an alias and pluries summons to the defendant driver.

The defendant driver’s father (who had the same name as the defendant with a different suffix) executed an affidavit that stated he was the father of the defendant driver, and at the time of the accident, the son was living alone at a particular address, which was not the address the plaintiff had served. He attested to the son not living with him at any time since the date of the accident or on the date of service. He signed for the package because it seemed to be addressed to him, but he wasn’t authorized to accept documents on behalf of his son.

The defendant signed and executed a similar affidavit. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment that was based on lack of personal jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. His and his father’s affidavits were attached to the motion.

The case came before the judge, who granted the summary judgment motion and also dismissed the lawsuit as to the defendant who’d been named because she was the owner of the car and, according to the plaintiff, was vicariously liable.

The plaintiff appealed. She claimed there was an unbroken chain of summonses to the defendants and enough factual issues that the case should be sent back for trial. The appellate court disagreed. It explained that the complaint and summons had to be delivered to the proper person for service under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(a) (2015). Under Rule 4(j) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, service under certified mail could be accomplished by mailing a summons copy and the complaint by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

The reason for the service requirement was to give notice to the party against whom the proceeding was commenced and permit them the chance to answer. When there is service of process on somebody who isn’t authorized to be served, there is no jurisdiction over the person who was supposed to be served. When a defendant’s not served in the proper time, the plaintiff can get an endorsement on the original summons for an extension of time or may sue on an alias or pluries summons. But the validity of the alias or pluries summons depends on whether the original summons was valid.

In this case, the summons and complaint were served on the defendant’s father, and his name was listed on the summons. The alias and pluries summons listed the same name and same address. It was identical to the earlier summons. The summonses were never directed to the correct defendant and didn’t relate back. The plaintiff’s lawsuit was therefore barred by the statute of limitations.

Since the allegations against the car owner were based totally on vicarious liability principles, the appellate court affirmed that dismissal as well.

If you have been harmed due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The case arose when the plaintiff slipped while working with a manhole cover as a utility technician. He hurt his shoulder and neck. The city, his self-insured employer, accepted his claim for workers’ compensation. The city authorized his treatment with a particular doctor, who restricted him from working for a certain period. When that period concluded, the plaintiff asked for a note to stay out of work because he continued to be in pain.

While going to an office to get the note, the plaintiff got into a car crash and experienced a traumatic brain injury. He was taken to the hospital and asked his wife to call his supervisor and let him know about the accident. The wife contacted the supervisor and told him the plaintiff was in a car crash while going to get a note to stay out of work, and he wouldn’t come into work. The plaintiff also had a conversation with his supervisor, his safety manager, and other coworkers about his car crash.

He had a shoulder surgery and was subsequently assigned a 10% permanent partial disability rating. This resulted in permanent work restrictions, and the city continued to pay him temporary total disability benefits.

He also got care for his traumatic brain injury from a neuropsychologist. He was diagnosed with a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, and he was referred to a psychologist. He got different attorneys for his personal injury claim and his workers’ compensation claim. His personal injury attorney told his health insurance carrier he wasn’t working when he was injured in the car crash, so the medical bills had to be covered by his insurance. His third-party claim settled for over $45,000, and he received the proceeds.

The plaintiff and the city agreed to mediate the workers’ compensation claim, and it was at the mediation that the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation lawyer found out he’d been traveling to his authorized doctor to obtain a note for work when the crash happened. The mediation was suspended, and the attorney added a claim for the closed head and brain injury based on the crash.

The city said it didn’t know about the car accident or that he was claiming the crash was related to his workers’ compensation claim. It argued he shouldn’t claim compensation for his traumatic brain injury because he’d gotten a settlement with a third party without preserving the city’s lien.

The Deputy Commissioner entered an order denying his claim for benefits. He concluded N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2 set forth the only way in which the employer’s lien could be satisfied from a third-party settlement. He found that when a worker settles and receives funds from a third-party settlement without preserving a lien or asking for a reduction in the lien, he’s barred from recovering Workers’ Compensation Act benefits. The Full Commission reversed, finding he’d given actual notice of the car crash to the city. It found he wasn’t prevented from pursuing benefits and awarded benefits arising from the car accident. It also ordered reimbursement to the defendant for its statutory lien against the third-party settlement.

The city appealed, and the Commission was reversed. It found that the settlement had required the employer’s written consent to be valid.

Asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to review, the plaintiff argued that the cases the appellate court used had been superseded by a statute. The Court agreed with him. It found that, under N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2, instituting proceedings with a third party shouldn’t be construed as an election of remedies in order to bar the other potential remedy of workers’ compensation. Consent isn’t required for a valid settlement. The employer’s lien interest in third-party proceeds is mandatory, and the defendant could recover the amount of the lien through a credit against the ongoing workers’ compensation benefits.

If you suffered injuries due to a careless driver, the experienced Charlotte car accident lawyers at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

After the collision, the plaintiff settled with the defendant’s insurer and was advanced $35,000, which included the maximum medical payment and the liability limits. However, the insurer and the plaintiff couldn’t settle on the total amount of damages, so the plaintiff asked for arbitration under the policy provisions.

A panel of arbitrators awarded $110,000. This didn’t consider interest or costs in determining the award. The plaintiff moved the trial court to confirm the award. The lower court entered judgment for $110,000 plus pre-award interest and post-award interest. The insurer appealed.

It argued that the lower court did not have the authority to award the plaintiff costs, pre-award interest, and post-award or pre-judgment interest when it confirmed the arbitration award. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that courts have limited power to modify an arbitration award and has specified that a trial court can modify an arbitration award only if the arbitrators make mathematical mistakes, mistakes related to form, or mistakes arising from an arbitrator going over their authority.

The appellate court found that the lower court had gone over its authority by determining the plaintiff could recover pre-award interest and costs. Without a policy exclusion, pre-award interest is a subset of compensatory damages for which an insurer providing uninsured coverage can be liable. Whether to provide this, however, is within the arbitrators’ authority. If an arbitration award doesn’t provide for pre-award interest, the lower court is supposed to simply confirm the award the way it was written unless there was a computing error.

A lower court is allowed to grant this interest if the court has been expressly given this discretion in the arbitrator’s award. In this case, the arbitrators didn’t defer to the lower court’s discretion. The award stated they didn’t consider interest or costs. The appellate court found that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-569.25 permits the lower court to include the reasonable costs of the motion to confirm the award, but not other costs. The appellate court concluded the lower court’s modification was in error.

The lower court also awarded the plaintiff post-award and pre-judgment interest that was calculated from the arbitration award date to the date of payment. The appellate court found this was within the lower court’s discretion. There were no appellate cases cited by either party addressing the lower court’s power to grant interest that accrued after the arbitration award, but before the entry confirming judgment. It explained that if there’s no decision about this interest in the arbitration award, courts have the authority to determine whether or not to award post-arbitration interest and post-judgment interest on lawsuits to confirm the arbitration award.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment with regard to post-award interest and confirming the arbitration award, but it reversed the grant of pre-award interest and costs.

If you have been harmed due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The Deputy Commission entered a denial of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed, and the Commission amended its decision. However, a majority of the commission affirmed the denial.

The case arose when the plaintiff was bringing firewood to a home at the end of a two-lane residential road in a rural area. There was a short straight section at the start of the road with a double curve around the pond. At the time, there weren’t warning signs for the double curve or the 90-degree turn.

The plaintiff’s car was followed by an SUV. Inside were the plaintiff’s wife and their two small children. It was nearly dark. The plaintiff knew the road, having driven it before, but his wife wasn’t familiar with it. He and the plaintiff took the 90-degree turn, but as the plaintiff took the double curve, he heard the tires in his wife’s car behind him screeching. He saw the SUV’s headlights go into the pond. The SUV landed upside down. ER personnel responded and took the plaintiff’s family out of the SUV. His wife and one of his sons died. The other son suffered permanent, severe brain damage.

A DOT traffic engineer had performed a speed study at an earlier date. He gave the Commission his opinion that putting a 25 mph speed limit sign near the entrance to the road was enough to address the curves. A signage expert also testified and found a 25 mph sign appropriate.

The Commission decided that the speed study and signage were completed without a negligent omission. It concluded that even if the DOT had breached a duty to the plaintiff, the primary factor in the accident was the wife’s speeding. She was driving more than 25 mph at the time of the accident. The Commission decided that for this reason, the DOT shouldn’t be found liable. The plaintiff appealed this decision.

He argued, among other things, that it was a mistake to find that the DOT wasn’t negligent and that the DOT had no liability for a negligently performed speed study. He also argued it was an error to find that the way the wife drove was a superseding act.

The appellate court explained that the State has traditionally had sovereign immunity from personal injury lawsuits. The Tort Claims Act waived governmental immunity when an injury was caused by an employee’s negligence, and the injured person wasn’t responsible for contributory negligence.

In his argument about the DOT’s negligence, there was no challenge to a particular finding. Instead, the plaintiff argued that the failure to evaluate the pond as a hazard or the speed for the whole road imputed negligence to the DOT. The appellate court disagreed.

It explained that a DOT traffic engineer performed a speed study in 2003 based on a petition. He studied the traffic composition, the nature of the shoulder of the road, development, and road characteristics. He recommended a speed limit of 25 mph to address the road’s characteristics. The Commission gave weight to a civil engineer’s opinion that the speed study was appropriate.

The appellate court held that the findings of fact of the Commission supported its conclusion that the DOT wasn’t negligent with regard to the speed study. It affirmed the decision.

If you have been harmed due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court shouldn’t have permitted the credit, and it was an abuse of discretion not to let the plaintiff depose the defendant’s insurer, among others.

The case arose when the plaintiff sued the defendant, trying to obtain damages after a car crash. The jury found that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and the damages were $263,000. The defendant filed a motion for setoffs and credits against this judgment. The trial court reduced the award to $230,000.00 after making a finding that the defendant was entitled to credits or setoffs that totaled $33,000.00, based on the defendant’s motion. It found setoffs and credits would need to be applied so that the judgment would be $230,000.00. The order found that the parties had disagreed about whether the defendant should get a credit for what the plaintiff had gotten from their underinsured motorist coverage insurer.

The plaintiff responded. The plaintiff’s insurer filed an affidavit that included a settlement agreement between itself and the plaintiff, in which it agreed to pay $145,000 in underinsured motorist coverage under the plaintiff’s policy. The affidavit specified that the insurer paid what was left of the $145,000.00 of its coverage to the plaintiff in exchange for a release, including a release from its right of reimbursement. The insurer didn’t require the plaintiff to hold what it got from the defendant in trust.

The trial court held a hearing. It determined that the uninsured motorist coverage carrier waived its rights of subrogation and that it had paid the plaintiff $145,000.00, which represented what it owed based on the underinsured claim. The plaintiff executed a release against the insurer. The defendant’s liability carrier mailed the plaintiff $97,000.00.

The appellate court explained that a plaintiff is not allowed a double recovery for an injury in North Carolina. An underinsured motorist insurer is entitled to receive a right by assignment from the claimant or be subrogated to the claimant’s rights regarding any claim they have against the underinsured driver.

In this case, the defendant was given a credit for the $97,000.00 paid by their insurer, as well as a credit for the $145,000.00 paid by the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist coverage carrier. The plaintiff argued that the underinsured motorist coverage was a collateral source, but the court decided against this. It also concluded that since no subrogation rights were left, the defendant was entitled to a credit for the $145,000.00 payment and its own insurer’s payment. The plaintiff’s requests to take depositions were denied.

The plaintiff appealed. He argued that underinsured motorist benefits were a collateral source, such that the defendant couldn’t reduce his liability for benefits received from the plaintiff’s insurer. The goal of the collateral source rule in personal injury cases is to leave out evidence of payments made to a plaintiff by sources other than the defendant when it was provided to reduce the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that the rule was to prevent the defendant from a windfall when part of the plaintiff’s damages were paid by a collateral source. The appellate court found this issue irrelevant to this case because the rule wasn’t being applied in connection with trial evidence. Instead, the issue was the allocation of liability between the carriers and the defendant.

The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s insurer was not a party and had no right to subrogation. Since the insurer waived its right to subrogation, it was appropriate for the trial court to decide the insurer’s payment could be used as a credit against the verdict against the defendant.

For this and other reasons, the judgment was affirmed.

If you have been harmed due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The woman was speeding, and after she hit the decedent’s vehicle, she drove off the road and hit a utility pole. Power lines fell, and the pole split. The woman was charged with involuntary manslaughter, careless driving, reckless driving, and speeding.

If a loved one is involved in a car accident caused by someone else that results in his or her death, you may be able to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against the at-fault driver. Wrongful deaths in North Carolina are those caused by someone else’s fault, neglect, or wrongful act. The decedent must have had the right to sue for his own injuries had he survived. A wrongful death lawsuit is brought to put the surviving members of the decedent’s family into the same financial position in which they would have been if the decedent hadn’t died. It is wholly separate from a criminal proceeding for manslaughter or murder that may also be brought by a prosecutor.

Many wrongful death cases are based on negligence, though the basis for liability can also be intentionally wrongful conduct. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will need to establish:  (1) the defendant’s duty, (2) the defendant’s breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. For example, if the defendant speeded and crashed into another car, or was driving drunk and crashed into another car, these could be the basis of a wrongful death case predicated on the defendant’s negligence. On the other hand, if the defendant’s brakes gave out due to a manufacturing defect, and this was the cause of the decedent’s death, the plaintiff might need to turn to the manufacturer to recover damages for the manufacturing defect. The plaintiff must also abide by the requirements of General Statute §28A-18-2 and show that there are beneficiaries entitled to a recovery of damages.

Damages you can recover as a family member under the Wrongful Death Act include medical care and treatment, reasonable funeral expenses, the defendant’s net income, the present monetary value of the decedent to those entitled to receive damages, the services and protection of the decedent, society and companionship to those entitled to receive it, and compensation for the pain and suffering experienced by the decedent. Pain and suffering is only available, however, if the victim was conscious of pain and suffering between the time of the accident and the death. The consciousness need not be long to recover pain and suffering damages, but it must be at least for a brief period. Punitive damages can only be recovered to the extent the decedent could have recovered them had he survived. They might be appropriate when the car accident is a result of malicious, willful, or wanton conduct.

If you have lost a loved one due to the wrongful conduct or negligent driving of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

During the first half of the trial, the jury considered compensatory damages, and in the second half of trial, the jury addressed punitive damages. The husband put on evidence about his actual damages, including the proof he’d suffered harm before her death. The jury awarded the husband $4.25 million in compensatory damages. In the punitive damages phase, the jury listened to evidence that the defendant was a student who worked part-time, that she drank alcohol early that morning, and that she had a BAC above the legal limit two hours after the accident happened. $45,000 in punitive damages was awarded.

The defendant moved for a new trial, but the lower court denied the motion. She argued that the plaintiff’s questioning of the jury had violated her due process right to a bifurcated trial because the questions involved issues relevant only to the punitive damages claim. The appellate court explained punitive damages can’t be recovered when a defendant isn’t found liable for compensatory damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15. To make sure the jury doesn’t award compensatory damages based on issues relevant only to punitive damages, the North Carolina legislature has granted defendants the right to bifurcated trials that will allow liability issues to be tried separately from the amount of punitive damages. During the trial, the plaintiff isn’t permitted to introduce evidence about punitive damages during the phase of compensatory damages.

The defendant didn’t argue that the plaintiff put forward improper evidence about the defendant’s drunkenness during the compensatory damages phase of the trial. She argued that the plaintiff asking questions of jurors during voir dire about their alcohol and drunk driving attitudes was not proper. The appellate court explained that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-30 allows the defendant a bifurcated trial to make sure the jury isn’t improperly influenced by proof related to punitive damages. However, it explained the defendant’s right to bifurcation has to be balanced against the plaintiff’s right to an unbiased jury. This included the plaintiff’s right to ask jurors about issues they might be asked to consider.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-30, the same jury must try both the compensatory damages issues and the punitive damages issues. Therefore, the plaintiff could ask jurors about what they felt about alcohol and drunk driving. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff’s general questioning hadn’t expressly stated the defendant was drunk, so it was appropriate.

The defendant also argued the plaintiff shouldn’t have been able to ask “stake-out” questions. She also argued that all of the questions biased the jury, and the result was an unfair trial. In a stake-out question, a juror is asked to pledge herself to a future course of action if there is a certain set of facts. The appellate court disagreed as to the defendant’s characterization of stake-out questions.

If you have lost a loved one due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced Charlotte car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. We represent clients in the Charlotte, NC metro area and also Greensboro, NC and Winston-Salem, NC. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

If a loved one is killed in an accident, you may be able to bring a North Carolina wrongful death lawsuit. Each state defines wrongful death slightly differently and has its own rules about who can bring this type of lawsuit. Under North Carolina law, a wrongful death is one that’s caused by somebody else’s wrongful act, default, or neglect. In this way, it’s like a personal injury claim, but the injured person isn’t able to bring the case himself or herself. The decedent’s estate can sue for damages.

The wrongful death lawsuit is separate from any criminal charges that may be brought. While the personal representative of the decedent’s estate files the wrongful death lawsuit, a prosecutor files a criminal case. Both can proceed at the same time, and they can have different outcomes, due to the differing burdens of proof in each. The burden of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means a criminal case can be defeated by simply raising a doubt about guilt in the minds of the jurors. In contrast, the burden of proof in a civil case is merely “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the plaintiff needs to show their version of events is more likely true than not true.

A wrongful death claim can ask for damages for both the estate and family members, such as a surviving spouse and children. Often, the personal representative of the estate is a surviving spouse, parent, or adult child.

Damages that may be obtained include burial and funeral bills, medical bills, the pain and suffering of the decedent if he or she didn’t die instantly, lost wages, loss of protection, services and care, and loss of companionship, society, comfort, and guidance. These damages are first applied to reimburse an estate for the costs and expenses associated with bringing a wrongful death case. After that, they go toward attorneys’ fees and costs and paying any medical bills, funeral bills, and burial bills. Only after that do the beneficiaries get a portion of the damages. In some cases, it may be possible to get punitive damages, but this is rare in the context of vehicle accidents. Punitive damages are awarded to punish egregious actions that caused the death and deter future similar conduct.

If your loved one died as a result of someone else’s negligence, you may be able to recover damages through a wrongful death case. You only have two years from the date of the decedent’s death to file your lawsuit.

If you suffered injuries due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced North Carolina wrongful death attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The case arose when the plaintiff and the defendant were driving southbound when the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been driving at about 35 mph when she signaled to make a left turn. She was starting the turn when she was hit on the rear passenger side of her car. The defendant had been following the plaintiff and felt aggravated by the slow speed of the plaintiff, and she said that there was no turn signal when the plaintiff suddenly stopped. The defendant braked and turned right to try to avoid hitting the plaintiff.

After the crash, the plaintiff’s car went to the right of her driveway and moved through her yard before hitting trees and a deck and landing on its side. The impact resulted in the deployment of the airbags. The windshield shattered. The plaintiff’s body was pushed back, while her head moved forward, and she had to be taken out of the car by firemen. She suffered injuries to her neck and back and had medical bills of about $12,500. However, when the accident happened, her driver’s license had been revoked, and she didn’t have a license to operate a car.

The defendant argued that it was improper for the court to disallow her from presenting evidence that the plaintiff didn’t have a valid driver’s license on the date of the accident. She also argued that the plaintiff was negligent per se as a violation of a safety statute and that the evidence showed contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court dismissed this issue because the defendant hadn’t preserved it.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a safety statute was negligence as a matter of law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-7. She raised the issue for the first time on appeal, however. Therefore, the issue was dismissed.

The defendant also argued that it was an error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury about the allegation that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, but since the issue wasn’t preserved at trial, it was dismissed. Similarly, she’d waived her objection related to the pattern jury instruction on failure to reduce speed.

The defendant argued that there was enough evidence that the plaintiff had contributed to her own injuries to support the lower court granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court disagreed. It explained a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on this basis would be proper only if the evidence showed the plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a matter of law. In deciding whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, the issue was whether the evidence showed the negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference or conclusion could be drawn from it.

The defendant argued that there was no evidence that the impact from her hitting the back of the plaintiff’s car had caused the plaintiff to drive into the yard and crash into two trees, and therefore it was the plaintiff’s actions that had caused the additional injury. The appellate court explained this evidence was strong but not enough to preclude reasonable inferences that supported the opposite conclusion. The plaintiff had testified she kept her foot on the brake and didn’t accelerate, and the trooper’s testimony corroborated hers in that he believed she’d started to turn before getting hit. The judgment was affirmed.

If you suffered injuries due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced North Carolina car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Back in 1999, the federal government changed the standards for airbags, noting that airbag deployment sometimes caused serious injuries or even death. Those at particular risk were kids, small adults, and sometimes occupants who weren’t wearing a seatbelt. Due to the change in standards, car manufacturers developed sensors that evaluate different data points including deceleration and make a determination about whether to deploy the airbags. Some sensors exist outside the car and react to an object hitting the car, while others are inside and relate to the occupants’ weight and size. Airbags can sometimes deploy when the bottom of the vehicle hits a low object on the road.

In some cases, an airbag can kill or injure someone, although such injuries and fatalities are rare. If your airbag didn’t go off when you thought it should have, as a plaintiff you’d have to show what’s called an “enhanced injury” as a result of the failure. This means you’ll have to show your injuries were worsened or exacerbated because of the failure. In most cases, this is hard to do and viable only in cases involving catastrophic injuries or a wrongful death.

For example, if a passenger in the front seat is killed in an accident because the airbags didn’t deploy properly, it may be possible to bring a crashworthiness or second collision claim. In these claims, the manufacturer or seller of an airbag or another safety component may be held liable under theories of negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty for any harm experienced in an accident when a defect in the component aggravated or created an added injury to the plaintiff.

In other words, the manufacturer won’t be held responsible for any injuries that you suffer in the initial collision. Instead, it can be held responsible for enhanced injuries that go beyond whatever those injuries from the initial collision would have been had the airbag been deployed appropriately. Crashworthiness refers to the protections that your car provides to you against the injuries you might suffer in an accident. Among these protections are airbags.

In the 1990 case of Warren v. Columbo, North Carolina courts recognized a claim for enhanced injuries. The court held that a manufacturer could be liable for enhanced injuries that negligent design or manufacture had caused. The case involved a tractor-trailer crashing into the side of a school bus and killing six kids and the bus driver, as well as wounding others. Although enhanced injury is a recognized claim in North Carolina, the way it may be limited by the doctrine of contributory negligence in the context of an airbag claim is not well established.

If you suffered injuries due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced North Carolina car accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

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.

About a year later, the defendant filed a motion in superior court asking the judge to determine the amount of the lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2(j). The court denied this motion, finding that the amount of the employer’s lien was determined by the earlier amended judgment. Accordingly, the court concluded it didn’t have jurisdiction to determine the unnamed defendants’ lien under subsection 97-10.2(j).

The defendant appealed, arguing that the court had jurisdiction to determine what the amount of the lien was. He and the defendant settled the dispute and signed a release in which the defendant and his insurer agreed to pay the plaintiff a lump sum of $15,654.25. All claims arising from the car accident were released, though the employer and its insurer’s rights to enforce the judgment they’d gotten were preserved.

The employers and its insurer appeared and filed paperwork trying to determine the amount of their lien on the plaintiff’s recovery. This hearing was never scheduled, and the record seemed to show they didn’t proceed because the amended judgment had set how much could be recovered. The plaintiff moved to withdraw his appeal.

However, the defendant driver filed a motion asking the court to decide the workers’ compensation lien amount. The employer and its insurer argued at the hearing that the lien had already been determined by the amended judgment. The defendant driver’s motion was denied as res judicata.

The defendant appealed. He argued that the judge had made a mistake in denying his motion to determine the amount of the employer and its insurer’s lien on the basis of res judicata. The appellate court agreed. It explained that the doctrine res judicata stopped parties from re-litigating all matters that were previously decided. In this case, the employer and its workers’ compensation insurer had to show a final judgment, that the cause of action in the earlier and later suit was the same, and the parties were the same. When an injured employer is entitled to compensation from a third party, the superior court can determine the amount of an employer’s or workers’ compensation carrier’s lien. The court has jurisdiction if a judgment against the third party is obtained or where the employee settles with a third party.

In this case, neither res judicata nor what’s called the superior court judge rule were applicable. The plaintiff’s negligence lawsuit involved a claim for money damages. In contrast, the defendant’s motion asking for a determination of the amount of the lien was narrow and purely statutory. The identity of the parties in the motion was also not the same as the parties to the lawsuit.

Under subsection 97-10.2(j), the amount of the lien was supposed to be determined either after a judgment was obtained or after a settlement, when one party applied for the determination. The defendant was entitled to apply for a determination of the amount of the workers’ compensation lien. The appellate court found that the judge should have determined the subrogation amount at that point. The court reversed the order denying the defendant’s motion and asked the trial court to make a determination of the amount of the workers’ compensation lien.

If you suffered harm in a car accident in North Carolina, the experienced team at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

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.

They had numerous causes of action, including negligence, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, constructive fraud, and others. The defendants included the driver, the owner of the car, and the State of North Carolina, as well as USAA, the insurer of the driver. They also sued state officials, such as the Governor of North Carolina, the Attorney General, the DPS Secretary, and the Department of Transportation Secretary.

They moved to dismiss the complaint, among other things. The trial granted the State defendants’ motion to substitute parties and motion to dismiss the complaint, and then it granted two of the other defendants’ motions. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that there were numerous constitutional violations in the dismissal. They argued the judge’s judicial misconduct was a constitutional violation of the right to petition for redress and that the judge had erred in dismissing the constitutional claims against the state. They argued that the driver had been convicted of felony DWI and therefore wasn’t eligible for earned time to get a sentence reduction, thereby owing society at least four months in prison.

The appellate court dismissed certain issues as abandoned or not raised at the lower level. It considered the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against one defendant, the claims against the State defendants, and the wife’s claim against an individual.

It explained that there was no cause of action for third-party claimants against an insurer of an adverse party due to an unfair and deceptive trade practice under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. There is an exception to this general rule when an injured victim of an auto accident is an intended third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract between the insurer and the insured party who caused the accident. However, for this exception to apply, a third party, such as the plaintiffs, needs to obtain a judgment against the insured person in order to sue its insurer.

Since the plaintiffs hadn’t established the liability of the driver, they could not sue the insurance company. The plaintiffs argued that a judgment wasn’t necessary under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(f)(2). The appellate court disagreed.

The wife had requested contract rescission and a declaratory judgment. The appellate court explained that this was not an appeal from a final judgment, and therefore it didn’t have jurisdiction. The lower court’s judgment was affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

If you suffered harm in a car accident in North Carolina, the experienced attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

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.

The third driver was insured by Allstate, and his policy limits were $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. He also had a Mercury policy with a limit of $250,000 per person. Since multiple claims were asserted against the second driver, its insurer tendered the limits of its coverage to the passenger and driver, as well as five other accident victims. The passenger got $10,420, and the driver got $16,127.52. Farm Bureau was told that the other insurer had tendered the policy limits.

The passenger and driver claimed that the other driver was an uninsured motorist under the Farm Bureau policy. Farm Bureau offered to pay the uninsured motorist claims for $73,452.48, which was the policy limit minus the liability settlements that the passenger and driver had gotten from the second driver’s insurer. The letter offered to waive Farm Bureau’s subrogation rights to a referenced claim. Subrogation is what happens when an insurer pays an insured for a loss that a third party has caused. Once payment is made, the insurer steps into the shoes of the insured so that it can sue the third party for the loss the insured suffered.

The referenced claim only addressed the second driver’s insurer’s tender of the policy limits to the passenger and driver. The offer was conditioned on the execution of a release and trust agreement for underinsured motorist coverage.

The Settlement Agreement also preserved Farm Bureau’s subrogation rights against anyone else from whom the passenger and driver recovered damages. It required them to hold any damages in trust to be paid to Farm Bureau, based on the subrogation rights. The defendants struck this paragraph and signed only the altered agreement. After that, they asserted claims against the driver of the third car for their damages based on his negligence. Farm Bureau claimed its subrogation rights against the possible recovery.

It also sued to determine and establish its rights in 2015. The driver and passenger told Farm Bureau their claims against the third driver, and his insurers settled for $140,000 and $75,000, respectively. They asked the trial court to dismiss the Farm Bureau complaint. Before the hearing, however, the insurer amended the complaint to ask for monetary damages. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Farm Bureau appealed.

It argued that the trial court shouldn’t have granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It argued that its subrogation claims were prohibited by the statute of limitations and that the breach of its policies happened when the driver and passenger reached a settlement with the third driver’s insurer, and they refused to pay Farm Bureau under the subrogation clause of the driver’s policy.

The driver and passenger argued that the breach of the policy happened when they marked out the subrogation clause of the policy and sent a letter to Farm Bureau saying they wouldn’t honor the subrogation rights. The statute of limitations for a breach of contract lawsuit is three years, and a claim accrues when one party gets notice of the breach by the other.

The appellate court disagreed with the insurer about the timing of the breach. It explained that the Farm Bureau complaint on its face claimed that the driver and passenger breached their contract in 2012 when they expressly stated their intent not to honor the subrogation clause. Farm Bureau didn’t start its complaint based on subrogation rights until May 2015, which was more than three years after the driver and passenger expressed their intent to breach in March 2012. The dismissal was affirmed.

If you were hurt in a car accident, the attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form for a consultation.

When the plaintiff came to the intersection, the light had changed to yellow. The defendant’s light was changing from a flashing yellow arrow to a solid yellow arrow, and she was in the left turn lane. The plaintiff kept driving straight through the intersection, just as the defendant turned left. The defendant’s car hit the side of the plaintiff’s car so that the plaintiff’s car was pushed into a light post.

The plaintiff sued for his injuries and property damage and asked for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence. His motion was denied, and the case was sent to a jury. The jury found that the defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of the crash, but the plaintiff bore some contributory negligence. Accordingly, the lower court entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, but these motions were denied. He appealed.

The plaintiff argued there was insufficient evidence to support the jury instruction on contributory negligence. The appellate court found that the evidence at trial wasn’t enough to warrant a jury instruction on the issue of contributory negligence and reversed the trial court’s ruling. It explained that contributory negligence is negligence by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant’s negligence to produce an injury to the plaintiff.

The court further explained that a directed verdict on contributory negligence is only appropriate if the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the party not making the motion establishes his negligence so clearly that there is no other inference that could reasonably be drawn. The defendant has to show that the plaintiff failed to use due care and that there was a legal connection between the plaintiff’s failure and the injury. The appellate court explained that if there wasn’t more than a scintilla of evidence to support the defendant’s claim of contributory negligence, the motion should have been granted.

The appellate court reasoned that in this case, the plaintiff was going at the appropriate speed and was only 100 feet from the intersection’s center when he first saw the defendant, and his traffic signal changed to yellow. He couldn’t safely stop before the light turned red and went through the intersection while the light was yellow. The defendant didn’t present any evidence. On appeal, she pointed out that a witness on cross-examination had testified it seemed the plaintiff was driving fast.

The appellate court noted that this witness hadn’t been watching the intersection before the collision and hadn’t seen the plaintiff actually enter the intersection. The testimony was based on how the plaintiff’s car hit the light post after the collision. This was not more than a scintilla. The court also explained that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-155(b) requires a driver turning left to yield the right of way to a car traveling from the opposite direction when it’s so close it’s an immediate danger. The plaintiff was entitled to assume the defendant would follow this law. The jury had determined the defendant’s negligence, so the trial court was directed to enter judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of damages to which they’d stipulated.

If you were hurt in a car accident, Maurer Law may be able to help you. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form for a consultation.