North Carolina Car Accident Lawyers Blog

A man who suffered permanent and severe brain damage in a car accident is suing both the alleged at-fault driver and social media platform Snapchat. Plaintiff alleges defendant driver was using a filter on Snapchat that tracks how fast users are traveling. iphone3

The teen girl was reportedly operating her Mercedes at 107 mph. The 18-year-old reportedly wanted to share how fast she could drive on the social media platform. The feature reportedly offers a filter that records speed and overlays it on a picture.

The car of plaintiff, an Uber driver, was reportedly struck by defendant’s vehicle.  As a result of the impact, plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury that resulted in permanent damage. He spent five weeks in the intensive care unit and now needs assistance in order to walk. He is also no longer able to work. He lost 50 pounds and is no longer able to care for himself.  Continue reading

Drivers who cause harm to others by recklessly and irresponsibly getting behind the wheel intoxicated can be held liable for damages they inflict. But often, the damage they do is so extensive, the driver’s own insurance or assets will not be enough to fully compensate the victims. In these situations, injured parties can seek reprieve through dram shop laws.beerinapub

Technically, South Carolina doesn’t have an actual statute, but case law has allowed victims of drunk drivers to hold bars and other establishments liable when they negligently serve alcohol to patrons who are either underage or visibly intoxicated. In North Carolina, North Carolina General Statute section 18B-121 allows injured persons to hold vendors liable for service of alcohol if vendor serves a minor who becomes drunk and drives. Another statute, N.G.L. s.18B-305, makes it illegal to knowingly sell alcohol to an intoxicated person. This too may be grounds for legal action if that intoxicated person later gets into a car and hurts someone.

But what if the person hurt or killed is the drunk driver? Can a drunk driver or his estate sue a bar for negligent service of alcohol after that drunk driving accident? Continue reading

In a significant number of car accident lawsuits, testimony from medical experts is required to establish the extent of damages suffered by victims. bus

The trustworthiness of those witnesses is important, of course, but defendants will take any opportunity to challenge the assertion that plaintiff’s injuries were as severe as claimed or required the extent of treatment they received.

In the recent case of Moreno v. City of Gering, two defendants conceded liability for an accident that involved their employees. However, they disputed the extent of plaintiff’s injuries and the type of surgery she underwent as a result of those injuries.

According to records from the Nebraska Supreme Court, plaintiff was a passenger in a mini-bus operated by the county when the bus was struck by a van operated by a member of the city’s volunteer fire department.  Continue reading

Could a company that allows its workers to drink alcohol on the clock be held liable for damages if that driver causes a drunk driving accident?drinkinggirl

Our Charlotte car accident lawyers know there is a strong case to be made in that situation under North Carolina’s dram shop laws. However a recent appellate court in Ohio refused to hold the establishment liable.

Here’s what happened:

In Johnson v. Montgomery, plaintiff was a drunk driving accident victim who was struck by a driver who was impaired after consuming alcohol at a local strip club where she worked. Continue reading

A commercial driver licensed in South Carolina has been placed out-of-service by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) following a fatal hit-and-run crash on I-77 in Chester County, S.C. in February.

trucksontheroad1A shutdown order for the South Carolina driver was issued in March.

An investigation by both the FMCSA and the South Carolina Highway Patrol revealed not only was the driver involved in the fatal truck crash, he allegedly falsified his logs to make it appear as if he was in Charleston, when in fact he was in Chester County. It wasn’t until three days after the truck accident that state authorities were able to track down the driver. What’s more, the driver reportedly had been involved in two other collisions in the eight months prior to this one. Continue reading

The Arkansas Supreme Court has done an about-face on the issue of whether auto accident defendants can use an injury victim’s lack of a seat belt as a defense. OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

In a divided opinion for Mendoza v. WIS Int’l, Inc., the court sided with car accident defendants in finding the state’s restriction on the seat belt defense is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court ruled that the law, codified in Arkansas Code 27-37-703, violates the separation of powers provision of the state’s constitution.

Two justices dissented on the matter, finding the majority’s conclusion “inherently flawed.”

Whether this will have an impact on the direction sister courts take with this remains to be seen. Arkansas had been one of 31 states that outright rejected the seat belt defense, which allows a person’s non-use of a seat belt to be raised as an issue of comparative fault in a civil action, which means a claim for damages can either be diminished or eliminated. North Carolina and South Carolina also expressly reject the seat belt defense.  Continue reading

A limousine carrier in Illinois has been shuttered and is now facing at least two lawsuits following a fatal crash in which a 20-year-old driver was operating a commercial vehicle across state lines.limosuine

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the one person killed and six injured all hailed from Wisconsin and were on their way to the airport in Chicago for a vacation to Mexico. The driver was reportedly blinded by sun glare, struck a median barrier and flipped.

The young man should never have been driving the vehicle because Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulation requires only 21-and-over drivers to operate commercial vehicles across state lines. In addition to that, federal regulators discovered the limousine carrier failed to conduct pre-employment background checks on its drivers, kept no maintenance records of the vehicles and did not monitor its drivers in order to prevent fatigue. It also did not maintain a $1.5 million liability insurance policy as is required by law of for-hire passenger carriers. Further, it had been more than three years since the limousine service had filed its required safety registration. It was inactive for failure to file at the time of the wreck.  Continue reading

It was off to a rocky start for the first several plaintiffs in the GM ignition switch litigation, which involves a vehicle defect linked to at least 124 deaths and thousands of injuries. The first case was dismissed after the plaintiff was deemed not credible. In the second case, jurors found GM vehicles were unreasonably defective, but decided that wasn’t the cause of plaintiff’s accident.ignition1

Now, in this third case, overseen by a federal court in New York, GM has chosen to settle with plaintiff in a confidential agreement. This case stems from a fatal crash in November 2013 in which decedent was operating a Saturn Ion. The announcement of a settlement came just a month before the civil trial was scheduled.

The settlement was characterized as “an unexpected turn” in the course of the consolidated litigation over defective ignition switches, which resulted in approximately 2.6 million in vehicles were recalled. The company admitted that for more than 10 years, it failed to recall the vehicles with the defective switches. The feature was problematic – and even deadly – because it resulted in slipping from the “run” position to “off,” which also disabled key safety features, including air bags. Continue reading

The recent case of Davis v. Hulsing Enterprises does not involve a car accident. It might, however, impart some light on how drunk driving accident victims can seek compensation in North Carolina because it deals with the state’s dram shop statute. This is one of the ways in which victims of impaired drivers – and sometimes even the impaired drivers themselves – may pursue damages against establishments that negligently serve alcohol to certain patrons. alcohol

North Carolina General Statutes section 18B-121 allows injured persons to hold liable an alcohol vendor if:

  • Vendor negligently serves or sells alcohol to a minor under 21;
  • The minor causes a car accident while under the influence of the alcohol that was sold or served;
  • Accident and resulting injuries were proximately caused by minor’s impaired driving.

A separate law, N.C.G.S. 18B-305 states that it is unlawful for a permittee or employee to sell or give alcohol to a person who is intoxicated.  Continue reading

“Garage liability insurance” is a type of coverage carried by companies that handle customer vehicles. It’s a policy that is carried in addition to commercial general liability, and it differs from “garage-keeper’s insurance.”carinsurance

It may in some instances provide coverage for individuals who have very recently purchased a vehicle or those who have taken it out for a test-drive. It’s generally extended to:

  • Car dealerships
  • Repair shops
  • Tow truck driver services
  • Service stations

The reason this coverage is necessary is because standard commercial general liability coverage usually won’t cover damage to vehicles – or bodily injury to individuals – when those vehicles don’t belong to the insured party. Garage liability insurance coverage provides gap coverage to shop owners where they might otherwise have to pay out-of-pocket.  Continue reading

Contact Information