North Carolina’s contributory negligence rule

One critical law to consider is North Carolina’s contributory negligence rule. This rule means that if you, as a pedestrian, bear even 1% of the blame for the accident, you may lose the right to compensation. For example, if you were jaywalking or crossing outside of a crosswalk, your actions could play a role in reducing or eliminating compensation. Unlike many other states that use comparative negligence, North Carolina doesn’t allow compensation if you’re found even partially at fault.

The role of driver liability

In a pedestrian accident, determining the driver’s liability is key. If the driver was speeding, distracted, or violating traffic laws, they may be at fault for the accident. However, if the driver can prove you were acting recklessly or unlawfully, that can affect your claim for compensation. Gathering evidence, such as traffic camera footage or eyewitness testimonies, helps strengthen your case and shows the driver’s responsibility in the accident.

Insurance coverage in pedestrian accidents

North Carolina requires drivers to carry liability insurance, but understanding how insurance policies work is crucial. If the driver’s insurance doesn’t cover your medical bills or damages, you can file a claim under your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage—if you have it. This is especially helpful when the driver has insufficient coverage or was at fault but lacks the necessary funds to cover all your damages.

Additional considerations for compensation

Other factors can also influence the amount of compensation you may receive. Your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering all play a role in determining your total claim. Understanding the full scope of your injuries and how they affect your life will help you recover the compensation you deserve.

North Carolina’s laws surrounding pedestrian accidents can be complex, especially with the contributory negligence rule. Thoroughly evaluating every aspect of the case will help you navigate the process and protect your rights.

The North Carolina Court of Appeal discussed a pedestrian accident in a recent appellate opinion. In the case, the plaintiff left her apartment and began walking to a local shopping center in Goldsboro. The defendant was driving in the northbound lane on her way home from work at roughly 35 miles per hour. The lane on which the defendant was traveling was a five-lane road featuring two lanes on either side, a turn lane, and a paved median. The plaintiff crossed the two southbound lanes of this road and stood on the paved median. There was a vehicle in the turn lane that had stopped to allow the plaintiff to cross.

An SUV in one of the northbound lanes had also come to a stop to allow the plaintiff to stop and traffic was backing up as a result. The plaintiff walked in front of the SUV and peered around it to see if the way was clear, but the SUV driver blew its horn and the plaintiff began running across the road. As she ran across the second northbound lane, the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in operating her vehicle and that she was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant responded by asserting the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. North Carolina follows the pure comparative negligence rule, which prohibits a plaintiff from recovering any compensation if he or she is found to be even 1% at fault for his or her injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment and the lower court granted it. The plaintiff appealed on the basis that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The appellate court reviewed the record and disagreed. It noted portions of North Carolina statutes that require pedestrians crossing a roadway in portions outside a marked crosswalk must yield the right of way to vehicles on the road. It also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident on the basis that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had a clear chance to avoid the accident instead of just a possibility of avoiding it.

At Maurer Law, we know how overwhelming a Charlotte pedestrian accident can be for the victim and his or her family. While you are dealing with the stress that it is causing in your life, we will fight to make sure that your rights are being asserted. We provide a free and confidential consultation so that you can learn more about our team and whether you have a viable claim. Call our office today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

The North Carolina C0urt of Appeals recently discussed a case involving a pedestrian accident. The plaintiff was walking from her apartment toward a retail store while the defendant was driving home from work at roughly 35 miles-per-hour. The plaintiff crossed two southbound lanes of the street on which the defendant was traveling and stopped at the paved median. A car in the turning late stopped to allow the plaintiff to cross, and an SUV in the adjacent lane also stopped due to backed up traffic. The SUV driver honked its horn and the plaintiff started running across the remaining northbound lanes. The defendant’s car immediately struck the plaintiff as she ran into the outermost northbound lane resulting in injuries.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted negligently at the time of the crash and the defendant responded by arguing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in crossing a five-lane street during rush hour traffic outside of the crosswalk. The defendant moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff promptly appealed.

On review, the plaintiff argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and the defendant’s negligence. The appellate court disagreed. It pointed to a statute in North Carolina stating that pedestrians crossing a roadway outside of a crosswalk shall yield the right of way to oncoming vehicles and that pedestrians have a duty to maintain a lookout when traversing areas that are intended for vehicles. The failure to abide by the duty to maintain a lookout can be used as evidence of contributory negligence.

North Carolina law also states that contributory negligence will not apply if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but did not take action. The appellate court concluded that the defendant was not required to yield the right of way to the plaintiff merely because the plaintiff was in danger. And even if the defendant was able to see the plaintiff running across the street, the defendant only owed the plaintiff a duty if it was obvious that the plaintiff was not aware of the danger. The record showed that the defendant did not have enough time to slow down before the plaintiff ran into her lane.

If you were injured in a pedestrian accident, you are probably dealing with painful injuries and major disruption in your life. Maurer Law provides a free consultation to discuss your legal situation and whether we may be able to assist you. Contact us as soon as possible at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to set up your appointment.

A recent case involved a pedestrian accident in which the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was attempting to cross the street. The plaintiff stepped into the roadway in front of an SUV that had come to a stop in the road because of accumulating traffic in its lane. As the plaintiff stepped into the road, she peered around the front of the SUV to see if the lane was clear. The SUV driver blew its horn and the plaintiff decided to run across the road. The defendant’s vehicle, which was traveling in the lane adjacent to the lane in which the SUV was stopped, immediately struck the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant was negligent in hitting the plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by running out into the road. The lower court agreed and granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that there were questions of fact regarding whether she was contributorily negligent and whether the doctrine of last clear chance applied.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. It first noted that under North Carolina law pedestrians must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic and have a duty to keep a lookout in areas where vehicles travel. Because the plaintiff did not keep a clear lookout to see the defendant’s vehicle approaching, the plaintiff was deemed contributorily negligent. North Carolina has created an exception to this situation where the plaintiff can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. It has to be a clear chance to avoid the accident, however, not a mere possibility of avoidance. The doctrine does not apply where the injury victim was at all times in control of the danger and simply chose to take a risk.

Applied here, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was in control of the entire situation and that even had the defendant been able to see the plaintiff darting into the lane the defendant did not owe her a duty. The defendant had no opportunity to slow her vehicle when she saw the plaintiff, who darted out in front of the defendant’s vehicle.

If you were injured in a car accident or pedestrian accident, it is important for you to understand your legal options and whether you are entitled to compensation. We know just how confusing this process can seem, especially if you are dealing with devastating injuries and other disruptions in your life like missing work. We provide a free consultation to discuss your situation so call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

A recent appellate decision discussed whether the driver of a vehicle that struck a tree lying across the roadway on which the plaintiff was standing was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff was driving a truck near Asheville in an evening during October 2015. The plaintiff’s father was a passenger in the vehicle. While driving toward their home, they observed a tree branch that had fallen across the roadway and was hanging off the ground. The plaintiff’s father told the plaintiff to slow down, and they pulled over to remove the branch. They turned on the vehicle’s traffic lights, and the plaintiff’s father contacted his wife to ask her to bring a chainsaw to their location. The plaintiff climbed onto the tree so that he could get across and attempt to wave down any passing cars while waiting for the chainsaw. A vehicle approached, and the plaintiff started waving his arms to get the vehicle operator’s attention. The plaintiff’s father testified later that the plaintiff had been goofing around while on the tree and that he did not get down from the tree as the vehicle approached because they thought it was going to stop.

The driver of the approaching vehicle testified that the sun was shining into his windshield immediately before the incident, making it difficult for him to see the plaintiff on the tree. The oncoming car collided with the tree, and on impact a branch struck the plaintiff in the head and threw him onto the adjacent roadway. The plaintiff was airlifted to the hospital and required serious medical attention.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the approaching vehicle, alleging that the defendant was negligent and responsible for the plaintiff’s medical expenses and damages. The defendant refuted these allegations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses, including a defense alleging that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court first rejected the plaintiff’s contention that his lower IQ rendered him unable to appreciate the danger of standing on the tree lying across the roadway. In reaching this conclusion, the court pointed to a lack of evidence in the record evidencing the plaintiff’s alleged mental incapacitation. Instead, the record showed that he had a valid driver’s license and that he had obtained a high school diploma in addition to a mechanics internship. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s failure to yield the right of way to the defendant constituted contributory negligence. Under North Carolina law, a plaintiff who is deemed contributorily negligent is barred from recovering compensation from the defendant. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

If you have been injured in a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation. The seasoned North Carolina pedestrian accident lawyers at Maurer Law have handled a wide variety of claims in the areas around Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem. To schedule your free consultation, call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts:

Statute of Limitations and Repose for North Carolina Medical Malpractice Cases

Public Official Immunity in North Carolina

Injuries Arising out of a North Carolina Battery

The plaintiff later testified that he parked there because he was driving a 22-foot-long crew cab truck that wouldn’t fit in the marked spots. He wanted to be able to see the truck while eating. He’d previously parked there many times, and the defendant’s employees and manager knew that customers sometimes parked there. However, about two years before, another vehicle parked there had been rear-ended.

The plaintiff came out of the restaurant and saw that his rear taillight had been damaged, and another truck in the lot had corresponding damage. He got help from a police officer eating inside. The officer asked the plaintiff to stand behind his truck while he took down his information.

However, while they were standing there, a woman drove her SUV into the parking lot and turned right to drive along where the plaintiff’s truck was parked. She hit the back of the pickup, pinning the plaintiff between the two vehicles. Later, she testified that she’d been distracted due to the presence of police cars in the lot and then was blinded by sun in her eyes. She later pled guilty to careless and reckless driving.

Due to the accident, the plaintiff needed to be hospitalized for three months and had to have his leg amputated. His leg and pelvis were fractured, and he lost vision in his left eye. He sued the defendant. The judge denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. During trial, the court excluded the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. This testimony was that the accident wouldn’t have happened if the defendant had included certain safety features like speed bumps in the design of its parking lot. Based on the exclusion of this testimony, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice. He refiled his case, alleging that the defendant had negligently failed to keep the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition.

The defendant filed for summary judgment, a motion that was granted. The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court explained that the ultimate issue in a premises liability case is whether the defendant failed to use reasonable care in maintaining its premises to provide for the safety of lawful visitors. The plaintiff argued that the defendant shouldn’t have allowed two-way traffic in the road in front of the restaurant and that it should have stopped customers from parking where the plaintiff had parked.

The appellate court ruled that the plaintiff parking there was contributory negligence as a matter of law. It also explained that even if, for argument’s sake, the defendant was negligent in the design of the lot, the other driver’s careless and reckless driving was not foreseeable and was considered intervening negligence.

If you suffered injuries as a pedestrian, the experienced premises liability and personal injury attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.