Motor Vehicle Accidents

March 20, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal as Premature in Rear-End Car Accident Case

When you are injured in a car accident, you can bring a personal injury claim against the driver of the vehicle that caused the crash. This may seem like a fairly straightforward process, but lawsuits can be incredibly complicated. The North Carolina civil court system also has countless procedural rules that must be followed in order for you to receive compensation. One of the best things you can do to protect your rights following a personal injury accident is to seek guidance from an experienced Charlotte car accident lawyer. At Maurer Law, our team has assisted numerous individuals with understanding their rights and the best way to proceed after an accident.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered whether the trial court made a reversible error when it granted a motion for a new trial in a case involving a car accident. The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that he was rear-ended by the defendant while his car was stopped at a red light. The jury concluded that the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and awarded $500 in damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. More specifically, the plaintiff challenged statements made to the jury asking it to consider the financial impact of a verdict on the defendant’s finances and statements indicating that the defendant did not have liability insurance to assist with paying a judgment. The court granted the motion for a new trial and the defendant appealed.

Before the appellate court can review the merits of an appeal, however, it must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The defendant in this case acknowledged that his appeal was interlocutory. This means that it was an appeal coming before a final disposition in the case. The appellate court noted that because the motion for a new trial only granted a new trial on the issue of damages, it was not appealable. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 7A-27(b)(3) specifically provides that motions granting partial new trials are not eligible for appeal.

January 15, 2020

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Award for Plaintiffs in Utility Company Negligence Case Based on Improper Jury Instructions

by Maurer Law

Bicycle accidents can happen in virtually any situation, leaving the victim with painful injuries and serious financial damages. This includes areas or objects that are maintained by government entities like utilities companies. Although utilities are a necessary component of our modern lives and key infrastructure, when maintained poorly they can put people in serious risk of suffering harm. At Maurer Law, our diligent team of Charlotte bicycle accident lawyers is ready to assist you with reviewing your potential lawsuit and whether you are entitled to compensation.

In a recent lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed damages against a utility company for injuries they sustained when they collided with one of its utility lines at different times that was lying at ground level on a public roadway. During an initial trial, the jury concluded that the defendant acted negligently and that neither plaintiff was contributorily negligent for his or her damages. The defendant appealed the lower court’s judgment based on this verdict. It also appealed the lower court’s denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

On review, the appellate court concluded that the lower court committed a reversible error when it instructed the jury about the doctrine of sudden emergency, which allowed the jury to conclude that neither plaintiff acted in a contributorily negligent manner. The record showed that severe weather caused the utility line to fall from its poles and that the defendant received notice of the fallen power line that same day. The first plaintiff was cycling along the roadway that day when another cyclist in front of her hit the wire and crashed. She was unable to stop before colliding with the cyclist and suffered severe injuries in the ensuing pileup.

December 9, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses UIM Coverage in Accidents Involving Multiple At-Fault Parties

by Maurer Law

Insurance issues often arise in motor vehicle accidents especially when multiple drivers, vehicles, and victims are involved in the crash. While you are dealing with your injuries and trying to handle the stress and disruption that the accident has caused in your life, the last thing you probably want to handle is an insurance claim and negotiation process. At Maurer Law, our seasoned team of Charlotte car accident lawyers is prepared to assist you with ensuring that you are treated fairly throughout this process. Contact us immediately to learn about your potential right to recovery.

A North Carolina appellate opinion provides an example of a common insurance dispute that can arise following a personal injury accident. The main issue in the case involved accidents where there is more than one at-fault driver. The court was asked to decide whether the injured party was required to exhaust only one liability insurance coverage of one of the at-fault motorists in order to trigger the insurer’s obligation to provide underinsured motorist benefits.

In the accident, a truck driver lost control of his vehicle while traveling on a freeway causing it to strike the median barrier and flip. A volunteer firefighter responded to the scene and found that the driver was injured, and that fuel was leaking from the vehicle. The firefighter was later struck by a vehicle that swerved in an attempt to avoid colliding with another vehicle that has slowed suddenly as it approached the area where the accident took place. The firefighter was dragged beneath the vehicle, sustaining severe injuries including broken bones, lacerations, and internal injuries.

November 26, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Fatal Truck Accident Case

by Maurer Law

Truck accidents are a particularly terrifying type of personal injury accident due to the massive size and weight of these vehicles. Although there are laws that govern how trucking operations must run, including routine safety inspections and careful hiring of qualified drivers, accidents still happen. As dedicated Charlotte truck accident lawyers, the attorneys at Maurer Law are ready to help you determine whether you are entitled to compensation following a preventable truck accident situation.

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.

November 19, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Pedestrian Injury Case based on Plaintiff’s Contributory Negligence

by Maurer Law

Pedestrian accidents can be particularly devastating due to the serious and catastrophic injuries that often result when a vehicle collides with an unprotected pedestrian. There are also often complicated legal issues in these cases regarding whether the pedestrian was walking in a permissible area at the time of the crash. If you were injured in a pedestrian accident, the experienced and compassionate Charlotte pedestrian accident lawyers at Maurer Law are prepared to help you assess your right to compensation.

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

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

November 13, 2019

E-Scooter Accidents are on the Rise in North Carolina

by Maurer Law

Electric scooters have become a popular alternative to many common forms of transportation. They are often a more affordable option and provide greater flexibility in terms of navigating crowded roadways, parking, and fighting morning or evening commutes. For all their benefits, however, there are many risks involved with using an e-scooter as a form of conveyance. For starters, scooters are not as visible as regular passenger vehicles, making them difficult for other motorists to see. A knowledgeable Charlotte motor vehicle accident lawyer can help you determine if you are entitled to compensation following a scooter injury accident.

Recently, North Carolina residents have experienced an uptick in scooter-related injuries. According to an article from Charlotte Observer, there have been 35 injuries reported involving electric scooters throughout Charlotte and Raleigh between January 2018 and May 2019. With 82 total crashes reported in the broader region, e-scooter accidents represented 42% of total accidents. So far, scooter accidents have not resulted in fatalities, but there have been at least eight deaths in the US associated with using a rentable e-scooter between 2017 and now, according to Consumer Reports.

Part of the uptick in accidents may be attributable to an increasing number of companies offering scooter rentals. This makes scooters available to people who may not have the experience or skill necessary to operate the devices safely. Although scooters are far different from passenger vehicles, operators should still use caution when riding them through congested areas and should pay attention to traffic laws. Even if a scooter rider has the right of way, a passing truck or car may not see the scooter or may assume that the scooter will stay on the sidewalk. It is also important to note that scooter riders need a motorcycle license to operate the machines on public roadways and must wear a helmet at all times.

October 21, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Discusses Dram Shop Liability in Drunk Driver Personal Injury Accident

by Maurer Law

Motor vehicle accidents are always devastating, but when a drunk driver is to blame the injury can seem even more difficult to accept. There are certain laws that provide ways to hold restaurants, bars, and other establishments that serve alcohol responsible if they overserve someone who leaves the premises and causes an injury accident. These are known as dram shop laws. As seasoned Charlotte drunk driving car accident lawyers, we are ready to help you fight for the compensation that you and your family deserve during this stressful and painful time.

The North Carolina Court of Appeal recently handled a case involving allegations based on dram shop liability. The defendant in the case owned a series of restaurants franchised in different counties throughout North Carolina. The owner disseminated information on how to identify intoxication and prevent it. The co-defendant in the case was a regular customer at one of the locations and between six to seven hours he was served between roughly 13 to 15 alcoholic beverages. Most of the drinks came from one server who’s shift ended before the customer left. The server who replaced her eventually cut off the second defendant from ordering more drinks. The second server ordered food for the customer to eat, which he did.

The customer then left the premises and caused an injury accident on Interstate 26. The plaintiff filed a suit against the restaurant and the customer seeking compensation for his injuries. He also alleged that the restaurant was negligent in supervising its employees, the two servers who provided alcoholic beverages to the customer. The restaurant moved to dismiss the dram shop claim and negligent supervision claim. The court granted dismissal of the negligent supervision claim, but the dram shop claim went to the jury. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to show that the servers were incompetent and that the cause of action was duplicative of the dram shop act.

August 30, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Decision in UIM Dispute Involving Fatality

by Maurer Law

As Asheville car accident lawyers, we often handle cases involving complex insurance policies and questions about whether coverage will be provided for an accident. If you have severe injuries following a crash that wasn’t your fault, you probably also have severe medical expenses, lost wages, and other expenses associated with the accident. In addition to helping you assert your right to compensation from the driver who injured you, we are prepared to help you ensure that insurance companies treat you and your family fairly during this challenging time.

A recent case from the North Carolina Court of Appeal highlights some of the key aspects of knowing your rights in an insurance policy dispute. The plaintiff in the case filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s liability to the defendant for an automobile accident in which the defendant was injured and his wife was killed. The decedent had an insurance policy that provided underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person or $300,000 per accident. The other driver involved in the accident had an insurance policy providing coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident.

The other driver’s insurer tendered the full policy limits of $100,000 per accident divided among the four parties in the accident. The decedent’s insurer paid the surviving husband $68,000, which represented the $100,000 policy limit minus the amount he received from the other driver’s insurer. It also paid a sum to the decedent’s estate. The surviving husband argued in court that he was entitled to receive UIM policy limits. The husband ultimately won this argument and the insurer appealed.

June 27, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Issues Decision Clarifying Key Statute Regarding a Hospital’s Right to Assert Medical Liens in Car Accident Cases

by Maurer Law

Car accident victims are almost always concerned about medical bills and if they will be saddled with extraordinary debt as a result of a crash that someone else caused. Our team of diligent Raleigh car accident lawyers has guided countless individuals through the legal system and helped accident victims understand their rights after someone else has driven carelessly and caused a crash. If you face serious medical bills and other expenses, you may be entitled to compensation. Let us help you assert your legal rights today.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal handled a case that involved an issue stemming from medical bills that a victim incurred as the result of a car accident. The victim of the crash reported to a hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. The hospital learned that another driver was responsible for the accident and instead of billing the plaintiff’s healthcare insurer, it decided to rely on medical lien statutes and any payments that the plaintiff received from the other driver. It sent the plaintiff a letter notifying him that he had nearly $7,000 in medical bills and that the hospital asserted a medical lien against any liability recovery, medical payments, or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

A statute prohibits hospitals from billing patients for expenses that would have been covered pursuant to a healthcare policy. In the lawsuit that arose regarding payment of the plaintiff’s bills, the court had to consider whether this statute prohibits a hospital from relying solely on medical liens and any potential judgment that the patient receives from someone who caused the injury instead of billing the health insurer for that patient.

June 13, 2019

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Pedestrian Accident Finding that Plaintiff was Contributorily Negligent

by Maurer Law

If you are injured in a car accident or pedestrian accident it is critical for you to know your rights and to understand whether the person who caused your injuries owes you compensation. There are countless doctrines and laws that are involved in a personal injury accident, which can make the process seem incredibly overwhelming. At Maurer Law, our seasoned Raleigh car accident lawyers are prepared to help you navigate the legal system as efficiently and smoothly as possible while ensuring that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve.

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

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