The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a truck accident case involving the improper loading of freight. The case involved a truck driver who worked for a trucking company. He drove the truck to a loading facility to pick up cargo that was packed onto pallets. The driver instructed the facility on how to load the cargo including instructing them to rearrange the items. he then drove the cargo to a plant. The plant was closed so he returned the next day. Before he left, he checked the cargo and tightened some of the straps. Another driver eventually took over the delivery of the shipment. While driving on the highway, he observed sparks in his side-view mirror and pulled over to determine that one of the items had fallen off the truck.

The decedent in the lawsuit was riding on the back of a motorcycle driving the opposite direction as the truck. The driver saw the sparks and attempted to dodge debris in the road but was unable to. The collision ejected decedent from the motorcycle and an oncoming truck then struck her, causing her to sustain serious injuries. She died later that evening as a result.

The representative for the decedent’s estate filed an action on her behalf including claims against the loading facility. The lower court granted the loading company’s motion for summary judgment finding that the plaintiff had not shown that the loading facility acted negligently. The plaintiff appealed this finding and the appellate court overturned the order of summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed North Carolina’s truck safety regulations and quoted the rule stating that a truck driver has an affirmative duty to ensure that cargo is properly loaded before operating. Under federal law, furthermore, proper loading of cargo is the duty of the carrier but when the shipper assumes the duty of loading, the rule is that the shipper becomes liable for any issues that arise.

Based on these rules, the appellate court concluded that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether the loading facility was responsible for the negligent loading of the truck because of its activities loading the cargo. Although the truck driver took primary responsibility for instructing how it should be loaded, the record also included evidence that the loading facility also had responsibility for proper loading.

If you or someone you love was injured in a truck accident, you may be entitled to compensation. At Maurer Law, we have seen just how devastating a truck accident can be for the victim and his or her family. We offer a free consultation to help you learn more about our services and whether we can assist you. Call us today at 704-243-9292 or contact us online to get started.

Criminal proceedings brought against a truck driver believed to be at fault for an accident that causes death to another driver are entirely separate from a civil lawsuit that may be brought in connection with the same accident. The criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an extremely high standard. Additionally, the criminal case is brought by the prosecutor on behalf of the state. Financial restitution is not always awarded even if the prosecution proves its case.

After losing a family member in a truck accident, surviving family members may face huge changes to their lives, and their only recourse to address their financial and emotional losses may be a civil wrongful death action. While no amount of money can make up for the loss of a loved one, there are practical considerations, such as the loss of contribution of income by the decedent and the difficulties of losing someone who did a significant portion of the work around a household.

In North Carolina, you may have a wrongful death claim if a loved one’s death is caused by another party’s fault, neglect, or wrongful act, such that if the decedent had lived, he or she would’ve had the right to sue for injuries. The goal of the law is to put the legal beneficiaries of the decedent in the same position financially in which they would’ve been had the victim not died. Wrongful death lawsuits can allow for some measure of financial security after the loss of a loved one, and in some cases, they change standards or policies so that the same type of accident doesn’t occur or is less likely to occur.

To establish negligence in connection with a wrongful death action, you will need to prove:  (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. A truck driver can breach the duty to use reasonable care in many ways, including by speeding, distracted driving, driving while intoxicated, weaving, tailgating, or failing to follow the laws and regulations covering his behavior as a truck driver. For example, an interstate truck driver is supposed to follow the FMCSA regulations and restrict his hours of service accordingly. He is also supposed to keep a log book of his hours. Some truck drivers fail to obey the hours of service and work longer hours, and then they falsify their logbooks. This is likely to be considered negligence by a jury. The truck driver’s employer may also bear some responsibility in this hypothetical.

Wrongful death claims also need to follow the requirements expressed in North Carolina General Statute §28A-18-2. For example, you’ll need to show that there are legal beneficiaries entitled to share in a recovery. Damages you may be able to recover include expenses for medical care, pain and suffering, reasonable funeral expenses, loss of services of the decedent, loss of society and companionship, and more.

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

The concrete truck was fully loaded and driving north on N.C. 49. When the driver turned right, he went too fast and lost control of the vehicle. He crashed into the van, which was stopped in the left turn lane of the road. There were three 13-year-olds and one 44-year-old adult woman in the van at the time. The Fire Department responded to rescue the victims. A crane and two heavy-duty wreckers were used.

Two of the victims were able to be rescued and taken to the hospital quickly. Rescue workers needed to get the concrete truck lifted off the van in order to remove the other two victims. It took an hour and 15 minutes to free them. Over 25 firemen helped with the rescue. A 13-year-old was airlifted to the hospital.

After the accident, the street was covered in liquid and debris and needed to be cleaned up. The North Carolina Highway Patrol investigated the accident, but troopers stated they believed the truck driver would be charged with speeding.

It can be very challenging to operate a concrete truck. Truck drivers must take particular care when making turns, since a truck that tips over while carrying concrete can cause catastrophic injuries or a wrongful death. It is also important for truck drivers to understand that they need to abide by speed limits and other rules that have been put in place for safety reasons.

To recover damages from a truck driver after a concrete truck accident, in most cases, an accident victim will need to prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. The victim will need to show:  (1) the truck driver’s duty, (2) a breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) actual damages. A jury is likely to find that a truck driver who speeds or takes turns too fast has breached his duty to use reasonable care while driving. If this results in serious injuries to another person, that person may be able to recover damages.

Often, there are multiple victims in a truck accident, making it important to retain an attorney who understands how to investigate and pursue damages after a truck accident. In some cases, a driver’s employer can be held indirectly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

However, the entity that hired the driver also has an obligation to the public to make sure that the truck drivers it puts on the road are safe drivers, and if that obligation is not met, it can be held directly responsible for the accident. When hiring a truck driver, for example, a trucking company should make sure that the driver has a clean driving record and that there are no red flags, such as DUIs or a drug abuse problem. While the truck driver is employed, the trucking company should make sure that the driver abides by hours of service rules and keeps an honest, accurate logbook. A trucking company can be directly liable under a theory of negligent hiring, supervision, or training.

In some cases, an accident victim may also have a claim against the manufacturer of a concrete truck or a component of the concrete truck, if defects in either the truck or a truck component cause an accident.

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

Neither the driver of the rollback nor the driver of the pickup operated the crane. Once the crane left the dredge and was put on the commercial truck, the dredge was strapped down by the defendant and the driver of the rollback. The two decided the rollback driver would drive the pickup truck back, and the defendant would drive the commercial truck with the dredge.

About five minutes later, the defendant began backing out of the gate and felt the dredge shift. He pulled over. The rollback driver got out of the pickup and went over to his truck. They made sure the straps were fastened, but when the defendant got next to him, the dredge crushed the rollback driver, killing him.

His wife filed a wrongful death action and survival claim against the defendant driver, as well as his employer and the contracting company. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine factual issue about liability.

The trial court listened to the arguments. The defense argued that the contracting companies weren’t entities. They also showed that the seafood company had been dissolved and that a different seafood company had actually employed the driver. They also argued that a corporate officer, which one of the defendants was, was not a proper party to a lawsuit against a corporation.

The plaintiff argued that there was a genuine factual issue about whether any of the corporations employed the defendant driver on the date of the accident. She also argued there was conflicting evidence about how involved the defendants were. She claimed that they’d checked with the Secretary of State’s office about the existence of the corporate entities, and there was no corporation of the name stated by one of the defendants.

Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the defendants weren’t necessary or proper parties to the litigation. The plaintiff appealed the order and voluntarily dismissed the actions against the driver and the seafood company without prejudice.

On appeal, the defendant asked to supplement the record, and it included a complaint that was filed one month after the voluntary dismissal of two of the defendants. It included similar allegations to the earlier case.

The appellate court explained that when partial summary judgment in favor of a defendant is granted, and the plaintiff then voluntarily dismisses the claims that are left, the order of the trial court is a final judgment. By filing a new action, the rights of all of the parties were still pending, and therefore, the summary judgment was no longer a final judgment. The appeal was interlocutory then and had to be dismissed.

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

At the time of the accident, the motorcyclist was insured under an automobile policy with Progressive and another one with USAA General. He sued both insurers, seeking uninsured motorist coverage. The claims were denied. Progressive claimed that uninsured motorist coverage wasn’t triggered because there was no physical contact between the plaintiff and the uninsured vehicle or the dump truck and the plaintiff. The insurer claimed that the object that hit the plaintiff had to be part of the equipment on the hit and run vehicle in order for uninsured motorist coverage to be triggered.

The plaintiff sued Progressive and USAA General, asserting numerous claims, including breach of contract and bad faith. He submitted an eyewitness’ affidavit, stating that she saw the debris from the dump truck make direct contact with the plaintiff and his motorcycle, which would other wise not have crashed. She also stated that it appeared there was nothing the plaintiff could have done to avoid the accident.

Progressive moved to dismiss the case under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). It claimed both case law and policy language required physical contact between the vehicles. The defendant allowed the motion to dismiss on this basis. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the statute should be construed to give him uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court explained that the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act provided protection to policy holders who are legally permitted to recover damages for bodily injuries from the irresponsible owners of uninsured motor vehicles.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3)(b) provides that if an insured claims he suffered a bodily injury due to a collision between motor vehicles, he can sue the insurer directly. The plaintiff argued that collision was synonymous with crash, which was defined elsewhere in the law as an event resulting in an injury due to a vehicle or its load, so the court should construe the “collision between motor vehicles” language to include the debris hitting his motorcycle.

The appellate court explained that the phrase described a specific type of collision, and it wasn’t that any type of collision was required but only a collision between motor vehicles. When interpreting a statute, a change in how something is phrased changes the presumption that there is a change in meaning. The appellate court explained that case law also supported the conclusion that the statute required a collision of vehicles. In an earlier case when an object fell from an unidentified vehicle and hit the plaintiff, this wasn’t enough to trigger uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court.

If you were hurt or a loved one was killed in a truck accident, the experienced attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

A 68-year-old man sitting as a passenger inside the car was killed while the car’s driver was injured and taken to a medical center. The drivers of the tractor-trailers were also taken to the hospital. The tractor-trailer driver who caused the accident was charged with misdemeanor death by vehicle.

The criminal charges brought against a tractor-trailer driver who causes an accident are independent of any civil charges that may be brought by the accident victim or his family if he dies. There is a higher burden of proof for criminal cases. Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, while liability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil suit. Liability in the civil suit is expressed through money, whereas guilt in a criminal case can subject the defendant to imprisonment, fines, or other penalties.

If you are injured in a tractor-trailer accident, you may be able to bring a civil lawsuit against a tractor-trailer driver who was responsible for your injuries. In most cases, you will need to establish negligence or negligence per se. This means, you’ll need to prove that it is more likely than not that the tractor-trailer driver breached his duty to use reasonable care while driving and the failure to abide by this duty caused your injuries.

This breach of the duty to use reasonable care can occur in many different ways. For example, it may include the truck driver texting while driving, driving while fatigued, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or prescription drugs, failure to yield right of way, or failure to observe traffic laws. When a truck driver fails to follow safety laws or regulations, it may be possible hold the truck driver accountable for any resulting injuries under a theory of negligence per se. Negligence per se applies when a defendant’s violation of a safety law or regulation causes injuries of the type that the safety law or regulation was designed to guard against.

In some cases, it may also be appropriate to hold the truck driver’s employer responsible. A truck driver’s employer may be indirectly liable under a theory of vicarious liability, but it can also be held directly liable for negligent hiring, retention or supervision.

For example, employers of interstate truck drivers are supposed to conduct a background check of prospective truck drivers to make sure they are competent to operate a heavy commercial truck. A background check can turn up red flags such as a DUI or being fired for failing to abide by FMCSA regulations. If a trucking employer fails to conduct a background check or looks the other way in the face of red flags, and the truck driver proves to be incompetent and causes someone injuries, the trucking company may be held directly responsible for negligent hiring.

If you were hurt or a loved one was killed in a tractor-trailer accident, the experienced attorneys of Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Underride collisions happen when a passenger vehicle runs into the back of a truck or trailer and runs under the truck, which sometimes takes the roof off the car and kills the occupants. Sometimes the collision is the result of a car driver’s inattention. However, it could also be the result of a lack of a safety guard, a poorly designed safety guard, missing reflective tape, or obscured reflectors.

The FMCSA requires guards for trucks and trailers that were made after 1998, but those made before that date need not be fitted with a guard. When an underride collision doesn’t cause death, it may cause catastrophic injuries, such as traumatic brain injury.

If a loved one’s death in an underride collision is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of somebody else, you may be able to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. The personal representative of the decedent’s estate can file the claim to seek damages on behalf of the estate and surviving family members. Sometimes the decedent has an estate plan and has already named a personal representative, but in other cases, a personal representative can be appointed by the court. Often, a surviving spouse, parent, or adult child serves as a personal representative.

The personal representative will most likely need to establish another person’s negligence after a wrongful death caused by an underride. Negligence requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff that he failed to meet and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s injury or death.

For example, if a tractor-trailer stopped suddenly on a dark highway, and its reflectors were obscured, and as a result the plaintiff couldn’t stop in time and died in an underride accident, the failure to have proper reflectors and the sudden actions by the tractor-trailer might implicate the negligence of the driver or trucking company.

Sometimes, defectively designed guards that were installed to prevent underride accidents give rise to product liability claims. It may be possible to hold the manufacturer strictly liable for a defective guard that results in the untimely death of your loved one.

If you can establish liability, the damages you can recover may include pain and suffering experienced by the decedent before he died, medical expenses including hospitalization or surgery, funeral and burial expenses, lost wages, loss of the decedent’s services and protection, and loss of society and companionship.

When damages are awarded, they will first be used to repay the estate for the costs of bringing suit and the attorneys’ fees and costs. They will then be used to pay any medical, funeral, and burial bills. After that, the beneficiaries divide the remainder.

If you were hurt or a loved one was killed in a truck accident, the experienced attorneys of Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Harris Boling v. Greer is a North Carolina case that arose when the defendant was driving a tractor-trailer owned by his employer and crashed into the plaintiff’s truck on Interstate 40. The defendant died as a result of his injuries. However, three years afterward, the plaintiff sued him and his employer on the grounds that the decedent was negligent, that the plaintiff had suffered a head injury as a result, and that the decedent’s negligence was imputed to his employer.

The plaintiff served a summons and complaint addressed to the defendant, which reached his widow. It also served the employer by certified mail. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, to which they attached the DMV’s report of the accident and paperwork showing the decedent’s date of death. They also attached the widow’s affidavit, explaining that her husband had died as a result of the crash and that she was the administrator of his estate.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had named the wrong party in naming the decedent rather than his estate, and the complaint couldn’t be amended because the statute of limitations was three years, and it had run. It also argued that the plaintiff couldn’t sue it based on vicarious liability because they had not stated a valid direct negligence claim.

The plaintiff argued that the widow’s affidavit hadn’t been served with the motion and that official county clerk records showed no estate for the decedent had been opened. Nonetheless, the court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed and argued that the trial court shouldn’t have admitted the widow’s affidavit in support of the motion, since it hadn’t been timely served with the rest of the motion.

The appellate court explained that the defendants had served the affidavit on the Wednesday before the next week’s Tuesday hearing, and the plaintiff’s attorney had acknowledged receiving the affidavit on the Friday before the hearing. It reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the affidavit hadn’t been admitted. They needed to show they were prejudiced by the decision to admit the affidavit. However, the plaintiff had also introduced documents at the hearing in order to establish facts, which had not been served with the motion.

The court explained that the plaintiff could have had an estate opened in order to sue the estate. In North Carolina, when someone dies, all but certain specified rights in favor of or against the person survive to and against the personal representative of the person’s estate. If there is no estate, plaintiffs can notify the public administrator to apply for the letters testamentary necessary to open the decedent’s estate.

The plaintiff also argued that the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment to the employer. The appellate court explained that the tractor-trailer company was right that summary judgment for the decedent was a determination on the merits, and therefore the vicarious liability claim also failed.

If you were hurt or a loved one was killed in a truck accident, the experienced attorneys of Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The plaintiff later alleged that Carter negligently pulled in front of him without yielding the right of way and that he crashed into Carter, and Tyndall was also negligent such that he couldn’t move into the left lane to avoid the collision. Carter was cited for an unsafe movement, but Tyndall wasn’t cited.

The plaintiff also alleged that the trucking companies that employed Carter and Tyndall were vicariously liable for their negligence. He also claimed that Western Express had negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained Carter and that he’d suffered catastrophic injuries due to the accident.

The plaintiff sent discovery requests to the defendants, including interrogatories to Carter. The interrogatories asked Carter for medical information related to who had treated him in the last 10 years for illnesses or injuries. It also asked about the test results of any blood alcohol tests performed on him following the accident.

Both Carter and Western Express answered the discovery requests. The employee objected that the interrogatories were irrelevant, overbroad, and protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the driver and his employer to answer the questions without objection. He also tried to compel documents. The plaintiff argued that toxicology reports were relevant to the issue of whether the driver was driving drunk. The defendants argued that some of the interrogatories sought privileged medical records. However, the toxicology results were negative for alcohol.

The court’s order on the motion to compel asked the plaintiff to produce all his medical records for the prior five years under a confidentiality agreement. For records before the accident, the court allowed the defendant driver to apply for a private review by the court to determine whether he needed to provide the records to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed from the order.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court had made a mistake in ordering the driver to produce all medical records for the past five years. The plaintiff argued that it was a frivolous appeal and that the defendant hadn’t preserved the right to claim physician-patient privilege.

The appellate court explained that a patient has the burden of objecting and establishing doctor-patient privilege when evidence is potentially covered by it. The driver hadn’t objected on the grounds of doctor-patient privilege in his interrogatory responses. However, since this argument hadn’t been made in the trial court, the appellate court overruled the issue as to Carter.

It ruled that Western Express couldn’t assert this privilege because it belonged only to the patient. The court explained that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53, no doctor could be required to disclose information acquired while treating a patient, if that information was necessary to treat the patient. However, a judge could compel disclosure if it was necessary to administer justice.

The appellate court reasoned that the plaintiff’s allegations included an allegation of negligent operation of the truck due to impaired ability. Under federal regulations, a driver’s blood needs to be tested for alcohol within eight hours of a crash and for controlled substances within 32 hours of a crash. The driver’s test in this case was outside this window, and his employer argued that it violated its obligation to test within eight hours because he was medically incapacitated.

The appellate court found that the trial court had not abused its discretion in ordering him to disclose a greater amount of medical information than what the plaintiff requested through discovery. It also found the lower court had entered an order protecting the driver’s privacy. It affirmed the granting of the motion to compel.

Not all personal injury attorneys understand how to work up a truck accident case and which types of discovery to pursue. If you were injured in a truck accident, the experienced attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.