A driver won’t necessarily avoid liability by lying – but the conflicting accounts can complicate the insurance claim, particularly in North Carolina. Because the state follows a strict contributory negligence rule, anyone who is found to be even 1% responsible for a car wreck is barred from recovering their losses. An insurance company may try to use the other driver’s story to get out of paying your claim.

The police report is useful – but not definitive

If the police cited the other driver for failure to control their vehicle or something similar, that could be helpful. However, even if the police report is incomplete or reflects inaccurate information provided by the other driver, additional evidence can be used to challenge the narrative. Other evidence that may be used to establish liability might include:

• Photographs of the vehicles, road and surrounding area
• Video from traffic, security or dashboard cameras
• Statements from passengers or independent witnesses
• Vehicle damage and the location of debris
• Skid marks and other evidence from the roadway
• Data recorded by the vehicles involved
• Cellphone records
• Medical records documenting the nature of the injuries

In a serious or heavily disputed accident, an accident reconstruction professional may be able to use the evidence to explain each vehicle’s movements before, during and after the crash. In addition, a driver who lies may have difficulty keeping their story straight, and their statements may not align with the objective facts. A skilled attorney can challenge their claims and highlight inconsistencies.

If you’re in a wreck and the other driver starts spinning falsehoods, don’t panic. Gather what evidence you can, such as photographs and contact information for witnesses. To best protect your interests, contact an attorney and let them do all the talking with the insurance company.

But not all types of distraction are the same. There are three general categories that drivers should keep in mind—and that all drivers should seek to avoid.

Visual distractions

One of the most obvious types of distraction is a visual distraction, meaning that the driver is not looking at the road. They may be changing the radio station or reading a text message. Even a parent who turns to talk to children in the back seat is visually distracted.

Manual distractions

Next, drivers can be engaged in manual distractions, even while they continue looking at the road. Someone who is holding a cellphone in one hand or picking up a cup of coffee to take a drink during their morning commute is experiencing a manual distraction.

Mental distractions

Finally, cognitive distractions mean that the driver is not fully paying attention, even if they still appear to be watching the road. A driver who is daydreaming is mentally distracted, for example, and it can affect their reaction time. Talking to passengers, singing along with the radio or trying to listen to GPS directions can also create cognitive distractions.

Have you suffered serious injuries in a crash caused by a negligent, distracted driver? If so, take the time to carefully explore all of your legal options for seeking financial compensation.

Modern auto technology, on the other hand, often focuses on preventing the crash from happening in the first place. Examples include automatic braking systems, self-driving systems, lane departure warning systems, sensors and backup cameras. They can all help a driver avoid a crash.

Despite the development of this technology, though, car accidents remain one of the top causes of injuries and even fatalities in the United States. Studies do not find that there has been a significant reduction. Why isn’t the technology working?

Drivers may be getting worse

Some safety experts believe that the technology is working, but that it is actually the drivers who are getting worse.

Some of this comes from complacency. People put too much trust in the technology, believing the car will avoid accidents, so they are less likely to drive safely.

Some of it also comes from distraction. The more technology is crammed into a modern vehicle, the more systems a driver has to manipulate or interact with. This can take their focus off simply driving their car in a safe manner.

For both of these reasons and more, drivers are still causing a serious number of accidents. If you have been injured due to someone else’s negligence, then you need to know how to seek appropriate financial compensation.

There are many potential reasons for this, with one of the most common being a lack of experience. This just makes critical mistakes more likely. As young drivers learn, some of them are going to engage in risky behavior or drive in ways that are negligent and dangerous. While many of them will learn from these mistakes and hone their skills, some will also cause serious accidents along the way.

Wrongful death damages

If you have lost a loved one in a car accident caused by another driver, you may be considering seeking compensation. This can start with normal damages that may apply to most serious car accidents, such as emergency medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. It can also extend to distinctly wrongful death-related damages, such as funeral and burial costs.

At the same time, a wrongful death has a significant impact on the family. In some cases, people can seek compensation for things like a loss of support, the loss of a potential inheritance and the loss of a close relationship with a parent or spouse. You may also want to consider lost future wages, which are especially important if the person who passed away in the accident was the family’s main breadwinner.

These are just a few areas to help you get started, and any individual accident could span far more reasons for compensation. Carefully consider all of your legal options after a fatal car accident.

How dashcam videos help show what really happened

After a crash, people often disagree about who caused it. One driver may say they had the green light, while another driver may claim the same. With dashcams, police can get a clear video of the accident. It also helps insurance companies understand what happened. Aside from this, dashcams also:

• Show how fast a car drove
• Capture dangerous behavior like texting or running a red light
• Record the weather and road conditions

This kind of evidence can quickly answer questions and eliminate guesswork. It can also help prevent false claims or unfair blame.

The strict rule of contributory negligence

North Carolina uses a strict rule called contributory negligence. Under this rule, if a person plays even a small part in causing their own injury, they usually cannot collect money for their damages.

Dashcam footage can play a significant role here. It can prove that someone followed the rules and did nothing wrong, thereby preventing others from unfairly blaming them. But the footage can also show actions that hurt a claim. If the video shows a driver speeding or not paying attention, the other side may use it as evidence against them.

Privacy rules and using the footage

Dashcams help a lot, but drivers still need to follow privacy rules. People may record events in public areas, but recording video on private property without permission or secretly recording audio can create legal problems.

Courts also require truthful evidence. If someone edits the footage misleadingly, a judge may refuse to consider it. Drivers should keep their video real and accurate so the footage clearly supports the facts.

Why guidance can make a difference

Dashcams provide a strong way for people to show what happened and protect their rights in accidents. Still, rules and claims can feel confusing. Talking with a knowledgeable North Carolina attorney can help someone understand how their dashcam footage fits into the case. With supportive guidance, people can feel more confident about the next steps ahead.

Lack of sleep is a primary cause of fatigued driving. The longer a person goes without sleep, the more intense the effects. At 18 hours without sleep, the person experiences the same effects as a person with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .05%. At 20 hours without sleep, the effects are the same as a person with a BAC of .08%.

Other causes of fatigued driving

There are many other causes of fatigue, all of which are just as preventable as fatigued driving that stems from a lack of sleep. Some of these causes include:

• Taking medications that cause drowsiness
• Having medical conditions that contribute to fatigue
• Driving at times when the body expects sleep
• Working third or swing shifts

Any driver who’s experiencing signs of fatigue, such as nodding off behind the wheel or frequent blinking, should get off the road as soon as possible. Fast fixes don’t work for these situations, so drivers shouldn’t turn to caffeine or similar measures to stay awake. 

Fatigued drivers can have a slowed reaction time or doze off at the wheel, which can lead to a crash. Victims of those crashes may need immediate medical care. They might file a compensation claim to help recover those costs, but these cases can be complex. Working with an individual who’s familiar with these cases may be beneficial for the victims.

Advanced safety features in today’s vehicles

Cars today come with high-tech tools like automatic emergency braking, lane-keeping assist, and blind-spot detection. These features help reduce the chances of accidents by stepping in when drivers make mistakes. You may not even notice these systems working, but they can keep you out of trouble.

Some cars also include driver monitoring systems. These watch for signs of distraction or fatigue and give alerts when you need to pay more attention. This extra layer of support helps prevent accidents before they happen.

How tech is changing accident investigations

When a crash happens, technology steps in again. Dashcams and event data recorders track what led up to the crash. These devices can provide clear proof about who was at fault. You no longer have to rely only on witness statements or memory.

Some insurers use telematics, which track driving habits over time. If you’re a safe driver, this tech could help prove your case after a crash. It might also lead to lower premiums because of your careful habits.

Faster and more accurate claim processes

Claims move faster when tech handles the details. Photos from your phone, repair shop uploads, and even AI-driven estimates make the process easier. You may not need to wait days for someone to look at your car.

Some companies use apps that walk you through every step. You can upload damage photos, get estimates, and schedule repairs all from your phone. This kind of service takes out the guesswork and speeds things up.

Tech is making cars safer and claims smoother. While no tool can prevent every crash, these features and tools make a big difference. Staying informed about your car’s features and using available tools can protect your time, money, and safety.

The force of impact or the damage caused by flying debris can sever or otherwise damage the spinal cord. Many people associate spinal cord injuries with an instantaneous and total loss of sensation and motor function. They think of people who become unable to move their feet or feel a needle prick in their legs.

Most people assume that if they can walk away from a car crash, they probably don’t have a catastrophic injury. What they may not understand is that spinal cord injuries can sometimes worsen after the initial trauma of a collision.

Incomplete injuries are often unstable

When people think about the total loss of function often depicted in popular media after a spinal cord injury, that is a complete spinal cord injury. The trauma completely cuts through the spinal cord, permanently ending the ability of the brain to communicate with the body below the location of the injury.

However, people can damage their spinal cords without actually severing them. Car crashes can tear, pinch or partially cut the spinal cord. People may notice impaired motor function or unusual physical sensations, but they may think they have some less serious injury, such as a pinched nerve.

They might go on with their day, only to suddenly experience an abrupt worsening of their symptoms. Physical exercise, secondary trauma and even aggressive motions caused by transportation can convert a previously incomplete spinal cord injury to a complete injury.

The possibility of an injury suddenly worsening is why medical professionals responding to car crashes or other incidents that involve head neck or back injuries use stabilization boards. They prevent people from moving abruptly so that health care professionals can assess them and provide appropriate interventions to prevent a spinal cord injury from worsening.

Those involved in serious crashes that cause significant injuries to others or catastrophic property damage may have injuries that they don’t notice at the scene of a crash. Getting prompt medical attention can help those people improve their long-term chances of recovery.

Those with costly injuries, including incomplete spinal cord injuries, may need help securing reasonable financial compensation afterward. Getting a timely diagnosis can also strengthen an individual’s ability to seek financial relief after a wreck leaves them with a catastrophic injury.

When catastrophic injuries change lives

Highway pile-ups often result in devastating injuries that go beyond typical car accidents. The multiple impacts and crushing forces can cause life-altering harm such as:

• Traumatic brain injuries
• Spinal cord damage
• Amputation
• Loss of sight or hearing
• Severe internal injuries

These catastrophic injuries do not just mean higher medical bills. They can affect your ability to work, care for your family or enjoy life as you once did. Recovery might take months or even years, with some effects lasting a lifetime.

Untangling multiple parties

One of the most complex aspects of pile-up accidents is determining who is responsible. Was it the driver who first lost control? The truck that could not stop in time? Or was poor road maintenance to blame?

With five, ten or even twenty vehicles involved, establishing fault becomes incredibly difficult. Each driver’s insurance company will try to minimize their client’s responsibility, which can leave victims caught in the middle of complicated disputes.

Why legal help makes all the difference

After a highway pile-up, having a personal injury attorney becomes essential. An experienced lawyer can investigate the crash scene, gather critical evidence before it disappears and identify all responsible parties. They will handle the multiple insurance companies that will contact you, helping you avoid inadequate settlements. Most importantly, while you focus on healing, your attorney works to secure compensation that truly reflects your current and future needs — from medical expenses to lost income and pain suffered.

Do not face the aftermath of a highway pile-up alone. The right legal support can be your strongest ally on the road to recovery.

Many drivers believe bigger vehicles offer more protection, but the reality is complicated. While larger vehicles can protect occupants, they pose greater risks to others. Heavier vehicles can cause more severe damage in collisions, leading to life-altering injuries and even fatalities.

The myth of “bigger equals safer”

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) challenges the belief that larger vehicles are always safer. The group’s research reveals that while adding weight to lighter vehicles can reduce the risk of driver fatalities, this benefit diminishes quickly for vehicles above average weight.

For heavier vehicles, the added weight provides minimal additional protection for their occupants but significantly increases the danger to others on the road. This myth persists despite advancements in vehicle safety features, such as improved airbags and crumple zones, which have made all vehicles safer regardless of size.

Understanding vehicle compatibility

IIHS studies have highlighted the importance of vehicle compatibility in crashes. This term refers to how well different vehicles interact during collisions, affecting the safety of their occupants. Improvements in vehicle design, like better alignment of force-absorbing structures, have reduced the risks posed by large SUVs and pickups.

Yet, the weight of these vehicles remains a concern. The study shows that those heavier than the average tend to be involved in more severe crashes with lighter vehicles. This finding suggests that while compatibility has improved, a vehicle’s weight still plays a crucial role in crash outcomes.

Supersized vehicles cause supersized consequences

Accidents involving large vehicles often result in devastating physical and financial repercussions. Catastrophic injuries include spinal cord damage, traumatic brain injuries, and multiple fractures, leading to long-term disabilities.

The financial burden can be overwhelming, covering medical bills, rehabilitation and loss of income. Skilled legal guidance is crucial for recovering from catastrophic injuries. An experienced lawyer can guide you through the complex legal landscape, ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve to recover physically and financially.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a claim in which the plaintiff, an insurance carrier, filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking an interpretation of insurance policies. In the claim, a minor was injured when a truck that her cousin was driving ran off the road and into a ditch. The minor was ejected from the vehicle. Her guardians filed a complaint seeking damages for the accident totaling over $81,000. The complaint also included a claim for underinsured motorist coverage against the minor’s grandfather. In the meantime, the cousin’s insurance carrier tendered $30,000 in benefits.

The plaintiff insurance carrier argued in the declaratory judgment action that the minor was not covered under the insurance policy. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court eventually granted. It concluded that because the minor was not a member of the grandfather’s household, insurance coverage was not available under the policy. The minor’s guardians appealed the decision.

The appellate court reviewed a few key facts. At the time the accident took place, the grandfather owned several houses and hundreds of acres of farmland. The grandfather and the minor’s father owned a house together until it burned down in 2005. The minor was living with her father in that house for a period of time after she was born. The grandfather purchased two houses a mile away from one another and the minor and her father lived in one of them. At various times, the grandfather would sleep at this house.

The grandfather testified that his land was considered a family farm where several members of his family lived and worked. He also paid all of the bills associated with the house where the minor lived with her father since she was a young child. There was also a period of time when the grandfather was appointed as the minor’s guardian and he testified to having provided her with financial and familial support throughout her life. Based on these facts and other findings in the record, the appellate court concluded that the minor was a family member and therefore insured under the grandfather’s policy at the time of the accident.

If you were hurt in a car crash, you may be entitled to compensation from the person who caused the accident to happen. At Maurer Law, we provide compassionate and seasoned guidance to injury victims and their families so that they can receive the compensation that they deserve. We provide a free consultation to discuss your Raleigh car accident case. Call our office today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

A recent Court of Appeal opinion discusses how important it is to follow procedural rules in a car accident case. The plaintiff filed a complaint claiming that she was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant. The defendant filed an answer alleging that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, which means that the plaintiff also acted carelessly and that this carelessness partially caused her injuries. During a hearing before trial, a dispute arose regarding whether the plaintiff could testify about her injuries, the accident, and medical treatment as a layperson. The defendant noted that the plaintiff had not provided a list of any expert medical witnesses who were going to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf. The defendant had moved to exclude the plaintiff from testifying about her injuries, the accident, and her bills until the plaintiff designated an expert witness.

During the same hearing and after an off-the-record discussion with the judge, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s case lacked a crucial element: causation. Without medical expert testimony, the defense argued, the plaintiff could not show a causal link between the accident and the injuries that she suffered. The plaintiff objected to the motion for summary judgment for lack of notice as required under Rule 56. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed. A motion for summary judgment asks the court to conclude that there are no genuine disputes of material fact in the case and that the case can be decided as a matter of law.

The appellate court reversed the lower court’s finding. It concluded that the defendant was required to file a 10-day notice for a motion for summary judgment according to the applicable procedural rules. The plaintiff did not waive this notice period, either. Based on this, the trial court should not have granted summary judgment. This is a dispositive motion, meaning it can affect the outcome of the case. Because of this, the rules give the non-moving party notice so that they can prepare a response to the motion.

A car accident can have such an incredibly disruptive effect on a victim and his or her loved ones. Let the compassionate attorneys at Maurer Law assist you with your Raleigh car accident case. You can schedule a free consultation to learn more about how the process works, how we can assist you, and whether you may be entitled to compensation. Don’t wait, act now to protect your rights. Call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the lower court’s denial of a plaintiff’s claim for damages in a negligence case arising from a car accident. The plaintiff’s son was driving a car that his mother owned at the time of the crash. The defendant was driving a van. The two vehicles collided in an intersection.

The plaintiff filed an action against the defendant based on negligence and seeking damages. To prove that a defendant drove a vehicle negligently, the plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to use ordinary care and skill when driving the vehicle and that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a direct and foreseeable result. Examples of negligent driving include not yielding the right of way or engaging in distracted driving habits behind the wheel. In response to the complaint, the defendant filed an answer naming the son as a third-party defendant.

During the trial, the son testified that he entered the intersection to make a left-hand turn but stopped to make sure the way was clear. The light changed from green to red and he was still in the middle of the intersection. The son proceeded to turn to complete the left turn at which point his vehicle collided with the defendant’s van. There was inconsistent information in the defendant’s testimony about the color of the light when he entered the intersection. During discovery, the defendant indicated that the light had turned yellow before he entered the intersection but at trial, he testified that it was green.

The jury returned a verdict that found both the son and the defendant negligent and denied compensation to the plaintiff. Plaintiff and the son filed appeals. The appellate court concluded that there was enough evidence to find both the son and the defendant negligent and the parties appealed again. The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that the son acted negligently regarding when he chose to enter the intersection and in whether he failed to notice the van approaching. Ultimately, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the jury’s verdict.

If you were injured in a car accident, contact Maurer Law to schedule a free and confidential consultation with a Raleigh car accident lawyer. We know just how overwhelming and confusing it can be to understand your rights after a collision. We will handle all aspects of your case, including obtaining evidence and negotiating with insurance companies. To schedule your free consult, call the office today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent opinion, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered an appeal involving a dispute about how an insurance policy should be interpreted in a personal injury case. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the crash, the plaintiff had an insurance policy that provided underinsured motor vehicle coverage subject to a limit of $250,000 per person. The defendant also had an insurance policy with a per person liability limit of $100,000.

The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages for the accident, alleging that the defendant’s negligence caused the crash to take place. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, permanent injuries, and pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict concluding that the defendant was negligent and awarding the plaintiff $263,000 in compensation.

The next month, the plaintiff’s auto insurer issued a check to the plaintiff totaling $145,000 for the amount of underinsured motorist coverage to which the plaintiff was entitled in the policy. Soon after, the defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to provide an offset and credit for payments that the defendant alleged the plaintiff had already received. This included $3,000 from the defendant’s insurer and at least $30,000 from a doctor who the plaintiff sued in the same litigation for medical negligence stemming from the treatment he received after the crash. The defendant also argued that because the plaintiff’s insurer waived its right to be subrogated to the plaintiff’s rights against the defendant, the defendant was entitled to a credit of $145,000.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and the plaintiff appealed, alleging specifically that the judgment should not have been offset by the $145,000 underinsured motorist coverage payment. The plaintiff alleged that this violated the collateral source rule, which does not allow a plaintiff’s recovery to be reduced by another source of compensation collateral to the defendant. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, finding that offsetting the $145,000 payment was appropriate.

The plaintiff appealed again to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings. It concluded that the lower court should not have allowed the payment to be a credit against the jury’s damages verdict. The Supreme Court stated that payments received through an underinsured motorist policy should not be credited against a judgment entered against a defendant.

If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact Maurer Law today to learn more about your potential claim for compensation. We know just how overwhelming this process can be and we are ready to assist you with all phases of litigation. This includes gathering evidence, negotiating with insurance companies on your behalf, and taking your case to trial. To schedule a free consultation, contact one of our team members at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether a lower court properly denied a defendant’s request for leave to amend their answer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The case arose from a car accident in which the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. When the accident happened, there was a red flashing light pointed at traffic from the road on which the defendant was traveling. There was also a stop sign five to ten feet back from the intersection. The lane of traffic in which the plaintiff was traveling was facing a yellow flashing caution light. The defendant drove across the plaintiff’s lane of travel when attempting to make a left turn.

In answering the complaint, the defendant denied the allegations but did not raise contributory negligence as a defense. This is a theory that holds a plaintiff accountable where the defendant can show that the plaintiff also acted negligently at the time of the crash. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff was also negligent, then the plaintiff is barred completely from recovering compensation. A few days later after filing the answer, the defendant filed an amended answer.

Shortly before trial, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave to amend to add contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. It offered evidence from Google Earth showing what it described as new evidence about the site where the accident took place. The trial court denied the motion for leave to amend on a number of bases, including the defendant’s delay in bringing the amendment and the prejudice it would cause the plaintiff by allowing the defendant to add an affirmative defense on the eve of trial.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed, stating that the lower court committed a reversible error by denying its motion for leave to amend. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s denial of the motion noting that lower courts have broad deference in determining whether to grant leave to amend. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed that allowing the defendant to add the affirmative defense on the eve of the trial was unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff.

If you were injured in a car accident, you may have a claim for compensation against the parties responsible for your injuries. To learn more about your potential rights, you can schedule a free and confidential consultation with the compassionate Charlotte car accident lawyers at Maurer Law. Call our office today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the procedures that a trial court used to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment were appropriate. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging that she was injured in a car accident as a result of the defendant’s negligent driving. The defendant responded by alleging that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff seeking damages.

Prior to the case coming up for trial, the court heard pretrial motions by both parties. At this time, the defendant noted that the plaintiff had not listed any expert medical witnesses in her disclosures. On this basis, the defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff from testifying about her injuries and medical bills unless she provided an expert witness who could provide an opinion about the injuries and their relation to the car accident. The plaintiff argued that she could testify based on her layperson experience undergoing treatment and that medical bills providing information about treatment and cost would be introduced into trial.

The court went off the record for several moments and came back on the record stating that the medical bills would not be admitted into evidence. The defendant had moved for summary judgment and the court allowed the motion over the plaintiff’s objection that the motion needed to be properly supported by evidence. The defendant claimed that without medical expert testimony or medical records, the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant’s conduct was the cause of her injuries.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed the finding of summary judgment for the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff did not have proper notice of the motion for summary judgment and an opportunity to respond. Rule 56(c) of the court’s procedural rules required a party moving for summary judgment to provide 10-days’ notice. The plaintiff did not waive this notice requirement. The trial court remanded the case for additional proceedings.

If you were hurt in a Charlotte car accident, you deserve compassionate and knowledgeable legal counsel to help you recover the compensation that you deserve. At Maurer Law, we provide a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we can assist you. We will discuss your situation and whether you may be able to receive compensation in a lawsuit against the parties who injured you. To schedule your confidential appointment, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case arising from a moped accident in which one party tragically died. The administrator of the decedent’s estate filed a claim alleging that the defendant was responsible for the decedent’s death and that she had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The decedent was leaving his job at a bicycle shop on his moped before the crash. The headlight on his moped had been broken in a previous accident and he attached a bicycle light in its place. A witness testified that she was traveling on North Carolina Highway 115 and saw a “very, very faint little light” on the road ahead. She believed the light belonged to a pedestrian. She passed the light and saw nothing because it was dark that evening.

The next day, she learned from TV reports that a moped driver had been killed at that exact location. A witness came forth stating that he was also traveling by motor vehicle at the same location and saw something go by his vehicle as he prepared to make a turn. He did not see any lights on the moped and thought it was perhaps a motorcycle. According to the complaint, the defendant was a third motorist in the area at the time of the crash who executed a left-hand turn onto the highway at which time the moped collided with the defendant’s car. He testified that he had not seen the moped and had no idea that it was in the general vicinity of his vehicle.

At the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent in executing the turn without ensuring the way was clear but also concluded that the decedent was contributorily negligent. The plaintiff appealed. The plaintiff argued, among other things, that the lower court should have instructed the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance, which requires a party to prove a number of elements including that the other party failed to use reasonably available time to avoid an accident. The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded that enough evidence supported providing the jury with an instruction on this doctrine to determine whether the defendant had the last clear chance. it vacated the lower court ruling and remanded the case for new proceedings.

If you or someone you love was injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may be entitled to compensation. Understanding your rights and figuring to the best way to proceed with legal action can be overwhelming, especially if your injuries are severe and painful. At Maurer Law, we provide compassionate and responsive legal advice to individuals throughout North Carolina. Call today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

The North Carolina appellate court issued an opinion in a case recently where an insurer and insured disputed whether or not the insurer was entitled to underinsured motorist benefits. The insured was a passenger in her sister’s vehicle when they were involved in an accident. The sister lost control of the vehicle, ran over a median, and collided with an 18-wheeler in the opposite lane of traffic. The sister tragically died in the crash and the insured suffered devastating injuries.

At the time of the crash, the decedent and the insured carried policies. The decedent’s policy was issued in Tennessee while the insured’s policy was issued in North Carolina. Both policies provided coverage for personal injuries up to $100,000 per occurrence and for injuries involving underinsured or uninsured motorists up to $100,000 per occurrence.

The insurer filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment stating that it was not required to pay underinsured motorist coverage according to the policy because the sister’s coverage amount provided the same amount of coverage as the insured’s policy. In essence, the insurer argued that underinsurance was not an issue in the case. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and the insured appealed.

On review, the appellate court considered whether the vehicle in which the insured was riding at the time of the accident qualified as an underinsured motor vehicle as defined under North Carolina’s auto insurance laws. Like many states, North Carolina has a set of laws that govern auto insurance policies and provide specific rules for how they must be applied. Ultimately, the court concluded that because the two insurance policies involved in the accident were equal, the vehicle was not underinsured at the time of the accident. Had the decedent’s policy provided coverage limits that were less than what the insured possessed, then the outcome may have been different.

If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may be entitled to insurance coverage benefits under your policy and any other policy involved in the accident. Insurance policies can be incredibly overwhelming and difficult to understand especially if the insurance company is refusing to provide you with benefits that you believe you deserve. Our seasoned team of Charlotte car accident lawyers offers a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether you are being treated fairly. To set up your appointment, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, an appellate court considered whether the lower court properly entered a judgment based upon the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. This doctrine stands for the idea that a plaintiff who contributed to his or her injury should not be allowed to recover compensation from another party involved in the situation. North Carolina follows a version of this doctrine that bars the plaintiff from recovering any compensation if the defendant can show that he or she was even a bit at fault for the accident.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that she was injured when the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign at an intersection crossing causing his vehicle to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle as she passed through the intersection. The officer who responded to the scene prepared a report stating that there were no braking marks, which suggested that the plaintiff had not attempted to stop. The plaintiff testified that she saw the defendant’s vehicle “a little bit before” he entered the intersection and that it did not look like he was going to stop. Based on this, the jury concluded that the plaintiff contributed to her injuries by not paying closer attention and identifying the defendant’s approaching vehicle sooner.

Although North Carolina law states that a motorist has the right to assume that motorists approaching from the left of the intersecting street will stop at a red light or stop sign if something happens that puts the driver on alert or reasonably should have put her on alert that the motorist will unlawfully enter the intersection, this assumption is no longer valid. A motorist who has the right-of-way still has a duty to keep a proper lookout and can be found contributorily negligent if there is additional evidence to show that he or she failed to do so. The additional evidence here was the plaintiff’s statement that she noticed the defendant’s vehicle as he entered the intersection, she did not think he was going to stop, and there were no brake marks. The appellate court, therefore, upheld the lower court’s judgment for the defendant.

Motor vehicle accidents are often painful and incredibly stressful for the victim and his or her loved ones. The Charlotte personal injury lawyers at Maurer Law provide a free consultation to help you learn more about the civil case system and whether you may be entitled to compensation. To schedule your appointment, call us now 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.