Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether a jury properly found that a plaintiff in a trip and fall case was contributorily negligent in causing her injuries. The plaintiff tripped and fell at the Blue Ridge Shopping Mall in Hendersonville in an area of its parking lot where an energy company had performed maintenance on utility lines beneath the surface. The patched area was roughly a half-inch lower than the surrounding parking lot surface.

The plaintiff parked her vehicle in a parking spot next to the patched area and tripped on the edge. She alleged in her complaint that because it was a sunny day, shadows obscured the edge and made it impossible to see. She suffered a concussion and fractured left knee as a result of the fall requiring a total knee replacement among other treatments.

The plaintiff filed a claim for negligence to recover her costs. The defendant answered the complaint claiming that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent on the basis that the lowered edge of the patched area was an open and obvious danger. Under North Carolina law, this doctrine states that if a danger is open and obvious to a reasonable person, then a landowner cannot be held liable for failing to address the condition or provide warnings to the person who was injured.

The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury at the close of evidence during trial on contributory negligence. Under North Carolina law, if the plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault, he or she is barred from recovering compensation. The plaintiff objected to the jury instruction. Ultimately, the jury found the plaintiff contributorily negligent and awarded no damages. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the plaintiff argued that the jury should have been instructed on comparative negligence, which asks the jury to assign percentages of fault to the parties and award the plaintiff a pro-rata share of damages. The appellate court noted that while the plaintiff advanced a number of arguments as to why the court should adopt a comparative fault approach, the law in North Carolina followed the contributory negligence doctrine and the court did not have the power to change the law.

If you were hurt on someone else’s property, contact the seasoned premises liability attorneys at Maurer Law as soon as possible to begin investigating your potential claim for compensation. We offer a free consultation to help you learn more about our services and how we can help you assert your rights. Call us 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 a lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a city in a slip and fall accident. The accident took place at a building that the city had purchased from the county in an attempt to revitalize its downtown area. It leased the property to nonprofit art groups. The lease stated that the defendant was responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building and had the right to inspect it from time to time.

The plaintiff was one of the subtenants leasing the building at the time the accident occurred. She was carrying a large stack of pictures through a rear exit of the building when she lost her balance on a set of stairs and fell. Evidence in the record suggested that the concrete material that comprised the steps had eroded. She suffered a broken hip and other injuries as a result of the fall. The plaintiff filed a claim against the city as the owner of the building.

The defendant eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that it was entitled to governmental immunity and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The lower court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that the city had leased the building to the art guild as part of a governmental function to revitalize the area and to prevent deterioration of a historical structure. Although now moot, the trial court also denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on contributory negligence.

The plaintiff appealed and the reviewing court analyzed the lower court’s ruling. The appellate court examined many factors in the record to determine whether the city was performing a government function that is entitled to immunity from personal injury lawsuits. It concluded that because the city was not seeking to make a profit and that the project was being used for a valid urban redevelopment project, it was a protected government function. It was careful to note, however, that not every such endeavor would automatically be entitled to governmental immunity and that a court should analyze each situation on its face. Because the lower court did not analyze whether the city waived its right to governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance, it remanded the case for additional proceedings.

If you or someone you love was injured in a premises liability accident, the seasoned attorneys at Maurer Law are prepared to assist you with examining your claim. We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and the best way to go about protecting your rights. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a trip and fall injury. The plaintiff was attending a funeral at the defendant’s church. The defendant’s employees asked the plaintiff if he would be able to assist with carrying a casket as part of the ceremony. The plaintiff agreed. He followed the employees through the building, down a flight of steps, and out a back door. The plaintiff and three others carried the casket through the same doorway. The plaintiff was walking sideways to account for the casket when he tripped as he attempted to cross the threshold.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant in the plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking damages. The trial court concluded that the nature of the danger, the steps leading in and out of the doorway, were open and obvious. It noted that the plaintiff had only moments before traveled through the same doorway when exiting the church to retrieve the casket. The plaintiff appealed and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the nature of the steps leading into the building was an open and obvious danger.

The defendant appealed and the Supreme Court considered the dispute. It reversed the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinstated the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant. Although North Carolina law requires landowners to warn visitors of hidden dangers on the property that the landowner knows about or should know about, this duty does not extend to providing warnings regarding open and obvious conditions. A condition is considered open and obvious when a person of ordinary intelligence would be able to detect it. The duty to warn guests about dangers applies to hidden dangers that are known or discoverable to the defendants, the Supreme Court stated. Finally, the Supreme Court stated that it is appropriate for a court to grant summary judgment when the facts support the finding that the danger in question in the lawsuit was open and obvious.

If you were injured on another person’s property, the responsive and experienced Charlotte premises liability lawyers at Maurer Law are standing by to assist you. Our team understands how important it is for you to be treated fairly and to receive the outcome you deserve in a timely fashion. To schedule a free consultation, call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case involving a woman who was injured on a set of bleachers at a college baseball game. According to her complaint, when she stood up from her seat and began to move one of the wooden slats in the flooring caught her foot and caused her to lose her balance. She fell down the bleachers as a result of this situation and suffered severe and permanent injuries including a broken back. The plaintiff had no memory of the fall due to suffering memory loss as a result of the impact.

The defendant responded to her complaint by denying that it was liable and alleging that the plaintiff acted negligently and was, therefore, the primary cause of her injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. The plaintiff promptly appealed.

The appellate court reviewed key facts in the record to determine whether a genuine dispute existed regarding the material facts in the case. It noted that plaintiff referred to the place where she was sitting as her usual spot where she would sit to watch her son play. Her husband testified that he saw his wife stand up but turned his head towards the field immediately after. He also testified that he told her at the hospital that a board gave away and her foot fell underneath causing her to fall down the steps.

The appellate court also noted a dispute about the plaintiff’s expert’s ability to access the bleachers for an inspection. The expert was denied access and the plaintiff sent several communications to the defendant to preserve the condition of the bleachers to facilitate the inspection. When the expert finally arrived, however, the bleachers were being disassembled.

Taking these facts and other key facts in the record into consideration, the appellate court concluded that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding how and where the plaintiff fell and that a jury could have concluded that the defendant failed to use reasonable care in maintaining and inspecting the bleachers. The jury could have also concluded based on evidence provided that the boards were unstable and weak and that the plaintiff did, in fact, catch her foot on one of the boards. It reversed the finding of summary judgment based on this.

Trip and fall accidents can be terrifying, painful, and life changing. You deserve compassionate legal counsel that will guide you through the legal process. Maurer Law offers a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we can assist you. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving an injury that happened in a private residence. The plaintiff in the case entered the home of the defendant for a party. The plaintiff went to a covered patio area and sat down to talk with other guests. Plaintiff was sitting near a step that was roughly six and one-half inches down leading to a lower patio area. The plaintiff got up from her seat after finishing speaking with the guests and fell almost instantly after attempting to walk away from her chair. She landed on her wrist and had to undergo surgery to repair the damage.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant alleged that the concrete step was unmarked and that because it was the same color as both patio levels it was difficult to see. She also alleged that the defendant failed to warn guests at the party about the hazardous nature of the step and that the defendant had considered painting the step another color or placing a railing next to it.

In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff filed an appeal alleging that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff was liable for the defendant’s injuries. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the record and stated that a step is considered an open and obvious danger and that guests are expected to use a reasonable level of caution when going about their daily business.

The facts also showed that the plaintiff was not distracted at the time that she fell, the weather was clear, she was not carrying anything in her hands, and she was not engaged in conversing with another party guest. It also showed that nothing was obstructing her view before she fell. Also, because she had been sitting next to the step for a reasonable amount of time, she had an opportunity to become aware of it. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.

If you were hurt because of a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, you should speak to a knowledgeable premises liability attorney in North Carolina as soon as possible to determine whether you are entitled to compensation. Maurer Law’s diligent team of experienced attorneys provides a free and confidential consultation to discuss your situation and answer any questions that you may have. To schedule your appointment call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a slip and fall accident. The plaintiff in the case slipped and fell on a molded walkway in her condo complex, and she filed a claim for compensation. The plaintiff alleged that she always used a stairway on the side of the building to access her condo. During August 2012, however, the plaintiff was recovering from rotator cuff surgery. The building featured two wooden walkways on either side of the building to get to the parking lot. Each walkway featured a 90-degree turn around a white column.

The building owner contracted with a company to maintain the common areas, including the walkways. In November 2012, one of its employees notified the defendant that one of the walkways was suffering from dangerous mold growth that made the surface slick when wet. She suggested that the defendant power wash the walkways but never received a response. Shortly afterward, the plaintiff used the elevator to go to the ground floor to get her suitcase. She was unaware that it had rained overnight. After turning on the 90-degree angle of the walkway, the plaintiff slipped on the slimy mold and fell, causing her to break her femur.

In response to the complaint, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and moved for summary judgment. It argued that the plaintiff did not look down while she was traversing the walkway and that she should have been aware that the rain from overnight made the surface more slippery. The defendant also noted that individuals have a common duty to exercise care and keep a proper lookout when going about their daily business. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court reversed and concluded that the evidence failed to establish that she was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The court concluded that even had the plaintiff looked down while traversing the walkway, it is unclear whether she would have seen the dangerous condition that the mold presented. The photographic evidence of the walkway presented at trial only showed a slight discoloration on the surface.

If you were hurt in a slip and fall accident, it is critical that you speak to a dedicated slip and fall lawyer as soon as possible to determine whether you can seek compensation from the persons or companies responsible. Our diligent team of legal professionals offers a free consultation, so call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment for the defendant property owner. The plaintiff sued the property owner after reportedly tripping on a crate of tomatoes that was allegedly protruding into the shopping aisle, according to the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant based its motion for summary judgment on the theory that the danger was open and obvious and that the defendant is not liable under premises liability law for open and obvious dangers.

A negligence claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant owed him or her a duty, failed to exercise appropriate care according to that duty and that the breach was the direct and foreseeable cause of any injuries that the plaintiff sustained. Under North Carolina law, a property owner owes all lawful visitors a duty to act with reasonable care. When it comes to a business owner, that duty requires the owner to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe and to provide warnings about any hidden dangers or unsafe conditions that are capable of being identified during a reasonable inspection.

According to the evidence in the record, the plaintiff entered the store for the purpose of finding collard greens. The plaintiff was directed down an aisle where he tripped on the tomatoes. The evidence also showed that the plaintiff had turned around and walked back up the same aisle after asking a store employee where to find collard greens, which means he had walked by the tomatoes on his way to ask the employee a question.

Based on this, the appellate court concluded that the crate of tomatoes, although protruding into the aisle, was an open and obvious condition that the plaintiff should have identified on his own. As a result, the court concluded that the store did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.

The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that even if the crates were open and obvious the aisle was open to the public and could not be navigated with reasonable care. According to the court, the evidence illustrated that the crates could have been avoided with reasonable care which was demonstrated by the fact that the plaintiff had walked down the aisle safely to ask a question.

If you were injured on someone else’s property in a slip and fall or trip and fall accident, you may be entitled to compensation. To learn more about your potential rights and whether we can assist you in asserting them contact the Charlotte personal injury attorneys of Maurer Law as soon as possible at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case in which a child who was 18 months old suffered severe burn injuries when he fell on a metal skate park ramp that had become hot from sun exposure. The parents brought a complaint against the city that maintains the skate park and the manufacturer of the metal ramp alleging that the metal ramp was a dangerous condition and that the city and the manufacturer failed to provide a warning that the metal ramp could become dangerously hot due to sun exposure.

The manufacturer filed an answer asserting several affirmative defenses, including intervening negligence of a third party, the babysitter who was supervising the minor at the skate park. The city raised similar defenses and alleged that the plaintiffs did not establish a viable claim against the city. The city later filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that it was entitled to immunity under N.C. Gen. Stat. section 99E-21, et seq., and that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish negligence or gross negligence on the part of the city. The lower court granted the motion and the plaintiffs appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed finding that the plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to show that the city may have been grossly negligent in maintaining the metal skate ramp. The evidence showed that the city knowingly installed heat-attractive ramps and placed them in an unshaded area that was directly exposed to sunlight and that the city failed to inspect and maintain the skate park or to provide warnings of the hot metal ramps. The city also did not take any precautions to prevent the ramps from becoming hot. The city knew or reasonably should have known that the ramps would become dangerously hot. The appellate court rejected the affirmative defense based on the babysitter, finding that she had no reason to know that the metal ramps were dangerously hot and that she had no opportunity to inspect the ramp before the toddler fell.

The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately pled a claim for gross negligence based on these facts, which alleges that a party engaged in reckless and wanton conduct. This is a step above negligence, which involves failing to use the same due care and precaution that a reasonably prudent person would use.

If you or a family member was injured on public property, you may be entitled to compensation through a premises liability claim. Having served countless clients throughout the Charlotte area, Maurer Law knows first-hand just how frustrating and stressful this situation can be for you and your family. We offer a free consultation to help you learn about your legal rights and whether you are entitled to a settlement or a judgment. To schedule your appointment call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a student at a university who was the victim of a prank in the dormitory. A group of students placed a cup of water above the plaintiff’s door so that it would spill on the plaintiff when he opened the door. The plaintiff confronted the group of students about the prank and the interaction became violent. Five students were suspended as a result of the altercation and the plaintiff along with his roommate were moved to another dorm. Eventually, the plaintiff withdrew from the university and enrolled elsewhere.

The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit against the university and its Board of Trustees, alleging that the university negligently caused the plaintiff to experience emotional distress and sought punitive damages for its alleged willful and wanton disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. The university moved for summary judgment and the lower court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed on the basis that he had established that the university owed him a duty of care and failed to act according to that duty, and that he suffered damages as a direct and foreseeable result of that failure.

On appeal, the court began by stating the general rule that defendants are not typically held liable for the intentional criminal acts of third parties, but that a college can be held liable for a criminal assault that one of its students commits against another student in certain situations. Whether the university is required to prevent the harm is determined by the foreseeability of the criminal assault.

Turning to the record, the plaintiff offered evidence that 41% of the calls to the campus police department involved plaintiff’s dormitory, with 11 incidents occurring during the two months before the plaintiff was assaulted. The appellate court noted that evidence of prior criminal activity is typically the most compelling factor in establishing that the campus had a duty to protect a student, but that here the evidence fell short of establishing that the campus breached a legal duty to safeguard the plaintiff from attacks by other students. Of the 11 incidents, only three were assault-related, for example, making the remainder inapplicable. Also, the plaintiff had not reported any prior acts of violence or threats of violence, and the students involved did not have a prior history of criminal activity.

If you were injured on another person’s property as the result of criminal activity, you may be entitled to compensation from the property owner who failed to protect you. At Maurer Law, we understand how overwhelming and stressful this situation can be and how confusing the legal system can seem at times. We provide a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether you have a viable claim for compensation from a negligent person or organization. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In a recent case, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries when she fell at an aquarium in Pine Knoll Shores during a Halloween-themed event. She required a hip replacement as a result of the fall. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the common areas of the property and in failing to warn people about the presence of a dangerous condition. The defendant denied the allegations and argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Initially, the assigned Commissioner concluded that the defendant was negligent, and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. It awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of roughly $72,000.

The defendant appealed the matter to the Full Commission, which reversed on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed on the premises.

Specifically, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove that the bridge on which she fell was designed in an unsafe manner or that a warning should have been placed around the bridge. The plaintiff alleged that she tripped on a board attached to the beginning of the bridge and that the board was so high that it created a danger of tripping.

On review, the appellate court upheld the Full Commission’s finding that the plaintiff did not meet her burden of proof. The plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to show that the height of the board at the beginning of the bridge would create a trip hazard. Instead, the record showed that the aquarium had beveled the board in a manner that would make it accessible for wheelchairs and that there was no evidence in the record suggesting that the beveled board would cause pedestrians to trip.

If you were injured in a trip and fall accident, contact us immediately to set up a free consultation to discuss your potential right to recovery. Our diligent team of legal professionals knows firsthand how overwhelming this situation probably is for you and your loved ones. We will guide you through each phase of the legal process while ensuring that your rights are asserted to the fullest extent and that you are treated fairly. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, a plaintiff in a personal injury action filed an appeal after the lower court denied her claim against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) seeking compensation for injuries that she suffered when she cut across a grass median and fell into a storm drain some five feet underground. She alleged specifically that the entity was negligent in maintaining and inspecting the storm drain because when she fell into the drain, the grate that would have covered the opening had been removed and was lying on the grass five feet away.

The plaintiff brought the claim under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act. This statute sets out a different set of rules and guidelines that parties must follow when seeking damages from a government entity. Unlike a regular negligence claim against a private person, there are different things that a plaintiff must prove to prevail against a government entity. In most cases, claims against municipalities are more complex and require the experience of a dedicated personal injury lawyer.

The court initially denied the plaintiff’s claim based on a finding that she was contributorily negligent by choosing to cut across the grass median and for not sticking to the pedestrian pathway. The plaintiff appealed this finding, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court ruling. It concluded that there was substantial evidence showing that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in navigating the situation and, because she chose to cut across the grass median instead of staying in the pedestrian walkway, she voluntarily put her safety at risk. Ultimately, the plaintiff should have had some awareness that deviating from the walkway onto a grassy median would pose some risk to her safety.

The court also found that the plaintiff did not keep a proper lookout when she decided to deviate from the walkway because she testified that she was distracted by her family who was coming to pick her up.

If you or someone you love has been injured in an accident involving a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to compensation. At Maurer Law, we proudly serve injury victims throughout Charlotte and know just how important it is for a plaintiff to understand how the legal process works before proceeding with a case. We provide a free consultation to help you learn about our legal team, your potential case, and how we can help you. To schedule your appointment, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent claim, a plaintiff attended a funeral at a church in Dunn, North Carolina, where he claimed that he suffered injuries while carrying the deceased’s casket during the service. The plaintiff offered to help carry the casket after the minister asked the plaintiff if he would be willing to help because there were not enough church employees to help carry the casket out of the church after the service.

The plaintiff exited the church at the start of the service and walked to the hearse where the casket was located. When the plaintiff was carrying the casket along with other pallbearers back through the same entrance, he alleged in his complaint that he tripped on the top step of the staircase and suffered injuries to his knees.

The plaintiff alleged a number of causes of action in his complaint including res ipsa loquitur, which means that the injury could have only happened as the result of someone’s negligence. The plaintiff pointed to the difference in height between the top step and the step below it in support of this claim, alleging that the distance was too great.

The church moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had seen the step and navigated it successfully on his way out of the church to obtain the casket only moments before tripping. The plaintiff opposed the motion and offered an affidavit from an engineering expert indicating that the stairs were defective. The trial court granted the church’s summary judgment motion finding that the stair presented an open and obvious condition that the plaintiff was aware of and the plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the basis that a reasonable person would not have known to take extra precautions against the step. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff indicated that he fell not because he was carrying a casket but because the height between the top stair and the remaining stairs was unusual. He also testified that he did not notice the height discrepancy when he was exiting the chairs. The appellate court concluded that these factual items created genuine disputes regarding whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or whether the church failed to provide sufficient warnings regarding the step.

If you were injured on someone else’s property, it is important that you seek counsel from an experienced and diligent personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. At Maurer Law, we will ensure that you receive the responsive and compassionate legal care that you deserve. To schedule your free consultation, call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In a recent case, the plaintiff’s filed a complaint against the owner of a property that they rented through an app-based service alleging that they suffered Legionnaires’ disease due to the owner’s failure to properly maintain the hot tub and adjacent waterfall located on the property. They also asserted a claim against the company that the property owner had retained to maintain the water features after construction and installation was complete.

The defendants filed motions for summary judgment that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a connection between the disease they contracted and the defendants’ maintenance of the property. The trial court ultimately agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court noted in its statement of decision that the plaintiffs had failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

The plaintiffs appealed on the basis that it was a reversible error for the court to grant summary judgment before the discovery period had closed. The general rule states that a court should wait until discovery that could lead to the production of relevant evidence is completed where the party seeking discovery has not been dilatory in doing so, but that a court is not barred from granting summary judgment before discovery is closed.

Reviewing the record, the court noted that the plaintiffs were not waiting for any outstanding written discovery responses and that they had not set any additional depositions. Also, the plaintiffs did not argue before the trial judge that they needed to conduct additional discovery.

The appellate court did agree with the plaintiffs, however, that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendants were aware they owed the plaintiffs a duty, whether the property owner had effectively passed her duty to the maintenance company, and whether the defendants engaged in negligent maintenance of the water feature. There was also a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the Legionella bacteria was present in the hot tub and water feature at the location and whether its presence caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. On this basis, the appellate court reversed the order of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor and remanded the case for trial on the plaintiffs’ negligence claim.

If you were injured as the result of someone’s failure to make their property safe and secure, you may be entitled to compensation. At Maurer Law, we are committed to fighting for injured North Carolina residents and providing them with the responsive and compassionate legal counsel that they deserve. To schedule a free consultation call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

A North Carolina appellate court recently considered a claim asking whether a city was immune from tort liability for the plaintiff’s slip and fall injury based on the doctrine of governmental immunity. The defendant leased the premises to various groups and the lease stated that the defendant was responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building and that it had the right to inspect the premises at any time.

The plaintiff in the matter was one of the tenants of the building. She was leaving through a rear exit carrying a large stack of items when she lost her balance and fell down the steps on a section of the steps that she alleged had eroded. She suffered a broken hip and other injuries. She filed a personal injury claim against the defendant alleging that it was negligent in its maintenance of the stairs and that it waived the doctrine of governmental immunity because it purchased liability insurance. She also alleged that the government was engaged in a proprietary function, which deprived the defendant of governmental immunity.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that the governmental immunity protections applied and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The lower court granted the motion for summary judgment finding that the insurance policy contained a specific non-waiver clause that allowed its governmental immunity protection to remain intact. It also indicated that there was no clear evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the defendant was engaged in a proprietary function because it owned and maintained the building and leased it to an art guild as part of its attempt to revitalize a downtown area. The parties appealed again, and the North Carolina Supreme Court determined that governmental immunity did apply. It relied on evidence showing that the urban redevelopment project was undertaken to improve health, safety, and welfare, which are all government functions. It also noted that the defendant was not looking to make a profit and that leasing it to an art guild was a valid revitalization endeavor.

If you were hurt on public property or privately owned premises, it is important that you explore your legal right to compensation through North Carolina premises liability law as soon as possible. At Maurer Law, we will investigate every aspect of your claim and ensure that you seek the full amount of compensation that you are owed. We provide a free consultation to discuss your situation so call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Rejects Constitutional Privacy-Based Request to Seal Workers’ Compensation Awards Decision

North Carolina Court Upholds Denial of Workers’ Compensation Claim in Psychiatric Injury Case Based on Improper Appeal Procedures

The North Carolina appellate court recently considered a dispute involving the Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff was injured after she deviated from a crosswalk and cut across a grass median at which point she stepped into an uncovered storm drain and fell five feet underground. The plaintiff’s husband dropped her off to go jogging and returned later to pick her up. The plaintiff admitted that she deviated from the crosswalk when she saw her husband’s vehicle approaching.

She brought a claim against the North Carolina Department of Transportation pursuant to the Tort Claims Act and filed it with the Industrial Commission. She alleged that DOT negligently failed to inspect and maintain the drain because the cover that would have been on top of the hole was lying a few feet away.

The Commission initially denied the claim in part, finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she left the designated pedestrian crosswalk and traversed the grass-covered median without keeping an eye out. According to the court, the hole was visible to anyone keeping a proper lookout. Also, it determined that her decision against using the designated pathway, along with her failure to keep a lookout, were the ultimate causes of her injuries.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Commission committed reversible errors in deciding that DOT did not owe her a duty of care regarding maintenance of the drain, that it did not breach any duty owed to her, and that her claim was precluded due to her contributory negligence. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim, finding ample evidence in the record to support its decision that the plaintiff’s failure to keep a lookout and failure to use the designated crosswalk were the proximate causes of her injuries. The plaintiff testified that she did not look where she was walking as she crossed the median because she was looking at her husband’s vehicle, for example. It also concluded that the DOT’s conduct had no part in her injuries.

If you suffered personal injuries in a slip and fall or premises liability accident and believe that a government entity may be liable, it is critical that you speak to a seasoned North Carolina personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. Our dedicated team of attorneys has handled numerous Tort Claims Act matters, which means we understand the steps that you must take to preserve your rights. We offer a free consultation to help you learn more about your situation and whether we can assist you. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to set up your appointment.

Related Posts

North Carolina Court Clarifies Applicability of Tort Claims Act in Accident Involving School Bus

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Revocation of Benefits to Injured Meat Cutter

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Insurer’s Subrogation Claim in Multi-Vehicle Injury Accident

She claimed that the aquarium, through its director, had been negligent in maintaining the aquarium’s common areas and failing to provide warnings about the dangerous condition. She claimed damages of $250,000. When it answered, the defendant denied the negligence claims. It argued that the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent. When a plaintiff is found contributorily negligent in North Carolina, she is barred from recovering any damages.

A deputy commissioner issued an order that found the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff and that she was not contributorily negligent. She was awarded more than $72,000 for medical bills and pain and suffering damages. The defendant appealed to the Full Commission. The Commission found that the plaintiff was 88 and owned a beauty salon, where she worked more than 40 hours per week until she was injured. She had no prior medical conditions affecting her walking ability, although she’d had an ulcer on her leg in 2011.

In 2011, she visited the aquarium for a trick or treat event, which happened on two nights. There were multiple concrete walkways from the parking lot to the main entrance. One walkway had a wooden bridge over a pond. Where the walkway connected to the wooden bridge, there was a discrepancy between the walkway and the bridge’s height. The discrepancy was half an inch.

On the date of the accident, the plaintiff and her family were going to the aquarium on a concrete walkway. Her grandson was walking in front of her. When he walked onto the wooden bridge, he hit his toe on the bridge board and fell forward. As he fell forward, she hit her foot against the edge of the first board so that she fell and landed on her hip.

The plaintiff testified she wasn’t paying attention to the bridge but instead was watching the crowd. She wasn’t distracted at the time of the fall, and there was no bridge or trash on the bridge that would have stopped her from seeing the edge of the first board of the bridge. After she fell, EMS and the fire department came and took her to the hospital. She was diagnosed with a displaced right femoral neck fracture.

The aquarium’s security chief came to the scene and put together an incident report. In it, he documented the area of the fall and noted the ground settled to the right side. He also noticed the first board had been rounded to avoid tripping incidents. After the fall, the security team kept watch for 20 minutes and didn’t see any other falls. The security chief inspected the grounds on a daily basis, including the walkway. He also ran safety meetings and took incident reports. None of these indicated a problem with the walkway. Similarly, insurance-related inspections hadn’t turned up a tripping hazard from 2006 to the time of the accident.

The Commission decided that the defendant didn’t have express or implied notice of a hidden hazard in the place where the plaintiff fell. It found she fell because of open and obvious slight irregularities in the walkway. It found that any slight height differences were of a type of normal, minor irregularities to be expected from an outdoor walkway.

The plaintiff appealed the Commission’s finding that the defendant wasn’t negligent. The appellate court explained that a plaintiff can show negligence by proving (1) the defendant didn’t use due care in performing a legal duty, and (2) negligently breaching the duty was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The appellate court found that the totality of the circumstances needs to be considered to decide whether there’s been a breach in the duty of care. In this case, the factual findings tended to show a vertical discrepancy between the bridge and the walkway that was a normal and trivial irregularity. Nothing stopped the plaintiff from seeing the irregularity. Regular safety inspections hadn’t turned up a safety issue, and this tended to show the defendant used reasonable care to maintain the property.

For these and other reasons, the Commission’s decision was affirmed.

If you suffered injuries due to negligently maintained property, the experienced Charlotte premises liability 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.

She could get to the parking lot from the elevator by using the wooden walkways. There were two, each of which included a 90-degree turn around a column. Tenants would come out of the building, walk down the wooden walkway, turn at the column, and keep walking on the walkway to get to the parking lot.

The HOA contracted with a management company in 2012 and 2013, and the company took over maintenance of the walkways. An employee of the management company told her employer that the walkways were dangerous because of mold that made them slick when wet in 2012. She submitted an estimate to get the walkways power washed, but the defendant didn’t respond.

The plaintiff came back after a trip and went to her unit, leaving her suitcase in the car. Rain made the mold slick. On the next morning, she went down the elevator to get her suitcase, not aware that there was rain overnight. She came out of the building, slipped on the slimy walkway, and broke her femur bone.

She sued the HOA, which raised the defense of contributory negligence — which serves as a complete bar to recovery if proven. The HOA brought a motion to obtain a dismissal. At the hearing, the trial court found that the evidence was enough to establish the defendant’s negligence, but the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for not looking down. The plaintiff had testified she didn’t look down, and the court said this showed someone wasn’t complying with a common sense duty to keep a proper lookout and showed contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court explained that the defendant bore the burden of showing contributory negligence. Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff breaches a duty to use ordinary care for safety purposes. This is the degree of care that a reasonable or prudent person would use under the same circumstances. Someone is negligent if he or she ignores unreasonable dangers that would have been obvious to someone using ordinary care. However, you can’t be at fault under contributory negligence unless you fail to act with actual or constructive knowledge.

You can be excused from not recognizing an existing dangerous condition that you usually would or should have seen if there is a fact that would divert a reasonable person from discovering the condition. If contributory negligence is claimed in a slip and fall, the question isn’t whether a reasonably prudent person would have seen the danger had they looked, but whether someone using ordinary care would look down. In this case, the plaintiff had no knowledge of the dangerous condition.

The appellate court found she wasn’t negligent as a matter of law and reversed.

If you suffered injuries due to negligently maintained property, the experienced North Carolina premises liability lawyers at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Before the day he was injured, the plaintiff hadn’t refereed at that particular gym. As a ref, he had to run along the court while monitoring the participants’ play. He claimed that while running alongside the game, he stepped on a warped part of the floor next to the court. He fell down and experienced an injury to his knee. The plaintiff also claimed that after taking the spill, the other officials advised him they ran around the warpage so that they wouldn’t fall.

The plaintiff sued the club and the Board, as well as the club owners, alleging he’d suffered a ligament tear and fracture, for which he needed surgery and incurred more than $300,000 in expenses. The Board denied the allegations and defended on the basis of failure to state a claim, and then it moved to dismiss. The judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The plaintiff and two of the remaining defendants moved for entry of judgment to revise the order so that the matter could be immediately appealed. The plaintiff was only appealing the dismissal of one defendant. In response to the appeal, the Board stated that after filing the appeal, the plaintiff dismissed all of the other defendants, but the record didn’t include any information about the voluntary dismissal. The appellate court agreed to hear the issue.

The plaintiff argued that it was inappropriate to dismiss his case under the rule of statutory immunity, under the rule of immunity for governmental entities, and under the rule of intended third-party beneficiaries. The plaintiff argued that the Board couldn’t show it had followed its own rules when it let the club use the gym, and it had failed to make sure the club possessed liability insurance.

The appellate court disagreed. It explained that a county board of education is a governmental entity and thus couldn’t be sued in tort or for negligence except when it waived its immunity by statute. Under North Carolina General Statute section 115C-524(c), a board was immune from being held liable when injuries were caused to someone involved in a non-school event on school property. No liability would attach based on personal injury because the school entered into a contract with an entity to use school property.

The club had agreed to pay a fee and indemnify and hold harmless the Board in exchange for the use of the gym. No evidence showed that the defendant Board didn’t have insurance for the event or that it didn’t comply with the part of the agreement that required the club to get insurance.

For these and other reasons, the lower court’s dismissal was affirmed.

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.

Starting in 2013, the city leased the building to an art guild, which wasn’t affiliated with the city or the county. The city leased the building in order to fill a vacancy and remove blight from the vacant downtown buildings. The purpose of the lease wasn’t profit, and the city kept its responsibility to inspect the building and maintain its exterior.

The art guild was limited to using the location as an art gallery, studio, and gift shop under the lease terms. The art guild had to provide compensation in the form of 90% of all of the rent money it got from subtenants, 30% of the gross sales receipts received for art sold in that location, and 15% of its gross sales receipts, and the subtenants had to provide at least 15 hours of volunteer time at the gallery as well as performing other tasks.

The subtenants got 19 private art studios in exchange. The plaintiff was a subtenant of the art guild who paid $95 each month to rent her studio, and 90% of that was paid to the city.

While leaving the premises through a rear exit and carrying multiple large pictures, the plaintiff lost her balance on the steps and suffered a broken hip. She incurred a lot of expenses, including hospital bills. Some of the cement on the steps had eroded, and since she’d been carrying pictures, she was prevented from seeing where she was stepping.

In 2015, she sued the defendant for negligently failing to keep up the exit or warn of its dangerous condition. The defendant filed for summary judgment, arguing it had governmental immunity. The motion was granted. The plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court explained that under the governmental immunity doctrine, a county or municipal corporation can’t be sued for its employees’ negligence while exercising governmental functions, unless there is a waiver of that immunity.

Governmental immunity isn’t applicable if a municipality engages in a proprietary function, as opposed to a governmental function. The latter is an activity that’s public, legislative, political, or discretionary and performed for the public good rather than for the benefit of the State. A proprietary function is an activity performed mostly for private advantage or commercial reasons. When it’s not clear whether an activity is proprietary or governmental, the doubt should be resolved against the city.

In this case, the plaintiff had sued the city on the basis of its ownership of a building leased to a nonprofit as part of revitalization efforts. The legislature had authorized cities to establish municipal service districts for the purpose of revitalization projects.

If a service at issue can be provided both privately and publicly, the court looks at multiple factors, including whether the service is traditionally provided by the government, the fee charged, and whether the fee does more than reimburse the operating costs.

In this case, the city received substantial revenue from many sources from the lease, and it provided so much pecuniary advantage that governmental immunity could not be applied. Specifically, the terms of the agreement, including the receipt of 15% commission on all private art sold, heavily weighed ownership and maintenance of the building as a proprietary function. Therefore, the court held the defendant wasn’t immune from suit.

Moreover, the appellate court found that the defendant was responsible for maintaining the steps, and the exit where the plaintiff fell was the only way to exit. The plaintiff was a subtenant, and the steps didn’t meet code standards. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because she was carrying big pictures that prevented her from seeing the steps. However, the appellate court found that a jury could find she acted reasonably, since there was no other way to leave the premises. Summary judgment was reversed.

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