The ride had been inspected and was certified for the Charlotte location. Our Raleigh injury lawyers know that amusement park rides in North Carolina are supposed to be inspected every time they’re assembled. Recently, however, somebody died and seven were injured when one of these rides malfunctioned at the Ohio State Fair.

The Fire Ball malfunction resulted in people being thrown from the carnival ride. The riders who were injured included a 14-year-old boy, an 18-year-old girl, a 19-year-old man, and others who were older. Ohio’s governor ordered the rides to be shut down pending safety inspections. All of the rides are to stay closed until each attraction can be inspected.

Most people go to amusement parks for fun, expecting that the rides at the park will be safe. They do not expect to be injured on the ride or in some other way. If you were injured at an amusement park in North Carolina, you may have a basis to bring a premises liability, negligence, or product liability claim.

Which theory of liability to use partially depends on which parties are potentially liable. Parties that may be liable include ride owners, maintenance or repair staff, manufacturers of the ride, ride operators, and others. Sometimes an owner or operator runs a ride in a way that violates a manufacturer’s instructions, while other times they may fail to obtain required permits.

In order to hold a property owner responsible for an injury or death, the property owner must have breached its duty of care, and the breach must have caused the injury or death. The duty of care depends on the nature of the visitor. Historically, there were three classes of visitors:  invitees, licensees, and trespassers. However, North Carolina courts recognize only lawful visitors and trespassers now. In North Carolina, most amusement park litigation will involve a lawful visitor, a customer, rather than a trespasser.

An amusement park owner is supposed to make reasonable inspections of property and owes a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid injuries to anybody on the property, based on dangerous conditions of which it should be aware or is aware. Amusement parks aren’t insurers of the amusement park but are supposed to use reasonable care to maintain the property to protect lawful visitors. Generally, a defendant is only supposed to refrain from willful and wanton actions toward a trespasser.

Some accidents are caused by a defectively designed ride rather than a breach of care by an amusement park. It may be possible to hold a manufacturer of a defective ride liable for injuries or a wrongful death. A North Carolina plaintiff will need to show that:  (1) the ride was manufactured or designed in an unreasonable way, creating a risk of harm to customers, (2) the manufacturer failed to adequately warn customers about the risks associated with the ride, or (3) the manufacturer failed to provide appropriate instructions for the use of the ride.

If you suffered injuries due to the wrongful conduct or negligence of another party, the experienced North Carolina premises liability 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 in 2012 when the plaintiff tripped and fell inside an auto parts store. He submitted his claim for injuries to the third-party administrator that administered the liability policy for the store. In a letter, the third-party administrator named its insured as the auto parts store and denied that the insured was negligent.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in October 2015, naming it incorrectly. In December, the plaintiff filed a notice to amend the complaint, providing a second name for the owner of the store. Civil summons were directed to both of the possible names.

The first defendant filed an answer to the original complaint, asking it to be dismissed under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for a failure to state a claim. It also asked for summary judgment in the alternative on the grounds that it didn’t lease or maintain the premises identified in the plaintiff’s complaint. It filed a second summary judgment motion, arguing there was no duty to the plaintiff because it didn’t own the store, the statute of limitations had expired, and any attempted amendment wouldn’t relate back to the original complaint. To this motion, it attached an affidavit from its senior claims manager, who said the defendant was a holding company, and the other name was a subsidiary that owned and operated the store where the plaintiff had tripped and fallen. The first defendant also answered the amended complaint, asking for dismissal and summary judgment.

The defendant who’d been named in the second complaint answered the amended complaint and asked for dismissal, arguing that it was a separate legal entity and that the statute of limitations had expired. No evidence was attached to the motion.

The plaintiff opposed the first defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It submitted an affidavit from the plaintiff’s attorney and two exhibits. The affidavit described how the plaintiff’s attorney had tried to find the correct defendant and had used the claims administrator’s letter in order to search the corporate registry for the name. The attorney’s paralegal had confirmed the choice of name by Googling it and looking at the website.

The second defendant filed a memorandum that included multiple evidentiary exhibits. It also presented the court with an application for a North Carolina certificate of authority to show that the first defendant was a Delaware corporation. The first amendment later did the same.

Summary judgment was granted to the second defendant based on evidence it submitted from the Register of Deeds, showing that it was the corporate entity operating the retail store and that the statute of limitations had expired in October 2015, before the amended complaint was filed. The lower court determined that under Rule 15(c), there was no leeway to add a new party to an existing lawsuit except to correct a mistake in the party’s name. It found the amendment tried to bring in a new defendant, rather than just correct a mistake. The trial court also issued an order granting summary judgment to the first defendant on the original complaint.

The plaintiff argued that it had relied on the claims manager’s letter. However, the trial court found the letter did not show any effort to mislead or misrepresent the name of its insured. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that its amended complaint should have related back. In North Carolina, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is three years. The plaintiff could have amended the pleading once before an answer was filed but could only do so after the statute of limitations expired if the amendment related back.

The appellate court explained that a misnomer is a mistake in names that is technical. It is distinct from the wrong name of a legal entity that uses two names or a situation in which the plaintiff substitutes one legal entity for another. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s amendment tried to substitute a legal entity for a different legal entity. The two named defendants were separate corporations. The appellate court also explained that equitable estoppel could be invoked only if the defendant had acted in a way that amounted to a false representation or concealment of material facts, knowing that the other party would rely on it. There was no evidence of that here, so summary judgment was proper.

It is crucial to name the right defendant in your trip and fall lawsuit. If you were injured by a dangerous condition in a retail store, the experienced Raleigh premises liability attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The North Carolina Tort Claims Act provides the exceptions to sovereign immunity from tort claims. It allows recovery for injuries caused by the negligence of state officers, employees, or agents who are acting within the scope of their duties in situations that would make the state liable if it were a private individual. However, the Tort Claims Act doesn’t waive immunity for a state employee’s intentional misconduct. Moreover, as with lawsuits against private individuals, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence completely bars his ability to recover damages.

Governmental immunity shields local governments, such as cities, from injuries caused by employees in the scope of their duties when they are performing “governmental functions.” However, it doesn’t protect local governments from tort claims based on an employee’s performance of proprietary functions. Factors that may show whether a governmental actor was acting in the scope of proprietary or governmental powers include whether the activity was one typically provided by a particular entity, if the actions were ones in which only a governmental entity could engage, whether a substantial fee had been charged, and whether a profit had been turned.

In Bellows v. Asheville City Board of Education, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in connection with a fall that Gaillard Bellows took from her wheelchair while on the grounds of a high school. She and her husband sued for negligence, willful negligence, and loss of consortium. The defendants moved to dismiss, based on failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and sovereign immunity grounds, and the trial court denied the motion. The defendants appealed.

The only part of the ruling that was reviewed was the ruling related to sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed that the trial court had erred in denying the Board’s motion to dismiss. The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled that the defense of sovereign immunity depends on the nature of the work done by the relevant governmental unit. Immunity only applied to governmental functions, rather than proprietary functions.

The court explained that N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 115C-40 and -521(c) allow several boards of education to own and control all of the property of a school, including real property. The boards are entrusted with the maintenance and care of the grounds.

Specifically, § 115C-40 authorizes boards of education to hold school property, purchase and transfer it, and build or repair schoolhouses, among other things. § 115C-521(c) provides the board with authority to control and direct the building and repairing. Based on these statutes, the function performed by the Board in this case was governmental. The appellate court reversed the denial of the Board’s motion to dismiss.

If you were injured by a dangerous condition on government property, the experienced premises liability attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

In 2012, the plaintiff was at church in the choir loft. While walking down the stairs after a service, she fell and suffered injuries. She sued the church, claiming that the injury was the direct and legal result of the defendant’s negligence and seeking damages. She argued that there weren’t any rails on the steps where she fell, although her husband had acknowledged there were plans to put them up on the steps before his wife fell.

The church answered, arguing that it was not negligent and that the condition of the stairs was open and obvious. It also argued that the plaintiff had contributed to her own fall and that there was an alternative, safer way down to the first floor. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment.

The plaintiff appealed. She argued that the trial court erred in finding the defendant not negligent in a summary judgment proceeding, rather than allowing the matter to go trial. In a negligence lawsuit like this one, the court is only supposed to grant summary judgment if the evidence is not disputed that the defendant failed to use reasonable care and that this failure was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The appellate court explained that there was no dispute about the fall or the injuries, or even that both the plaintiff and the defendant were familiar with those steps as a danger. The dispute was only whether the defendant owed a duty and breached it, foreseeably causing injuries to the plaintiff. The court noted that the husband had testified at deposition that others had fallen on those steps before and that the choir members, who routinely used the stairs, didn’t wear robes because they couldn’t see their feet. The plaintiff argued that since the defendant knew the steps were a hazard, it should have taken measures to protect visitors.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff knew of the danger already. The plaintiff’s husband was part of the committee responsible for renovations like railings. It also argued that each congregant, including the plaintiff, voted on plans to install a railing before she fell. The plaintiff had testified that she knew there was a different stairway that had a railing, but she decided not to go that way because she would’ve needed to get by three people to go out that way.

The appellate court explained that although property owners are supposed to use reasonable care for those they invite onto the property, there isn’t a duty to warn against dangers that are actually known about or that are obvious. The court affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment.

If you were hurt due to a dangerous condition on somebody else’s property, the experienced premises liability attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

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.