North Carolina Car Accident Lawyers Blog

If you have been involved in a North Carolina car accident, you may be confused over what you must do to prove your case. This is why it is so important for you to have an experienced North Carolina injury attorney guiding you to the award you deserve.

Recently, the Virginia courts clarified confusion surrounding the admissibility of medical evidence in a court case arising from a car accident. See Arnold v. Wallace. This case arose in 2005 when Mary Arnold (plaintiff) was involved in a car accident with Jonathan Wallace (defendant). The defendant was an uninsured driver and was the at-fault party to the accident.

Plaintiff entered a claim with her insurance company because she did have uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in her car insurance policy. Additionally, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit based on the theory of negligence. Negligence is the most common contention in personal injury lawsuits. In order to prove a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving all of the four elements of a negligence claims.

First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. This duty of care is usually measured by what a reasonable person in similar circumstances to the defendant's would do. Next, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached this duty of care to the plaintiff. The third element is the critical element in car accident cases. This is that the plaintiff must show that the defendant's breach was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Basically, the plaintiff must show that but for the defendants' breach of duty, she would not have her current injuries. Lastly, in a negligence claim the plaintiff must show that she suffered damages.

In order to prove the causation element of her case, the plaintiff called her treating physician to the stand. This doctor testified that the plaintiff was suffering from bone edema, spinal stenosis and post-concussion syndrome. This doctor testified that it was in his opinion to a medical degree of certainty that the plaintiffs injuries were caused by this car accident she was involved in which was caused by the defendant.

However, the issue in this case arose when the defense cross examined the plaintiff's doctor. The doctor's general practice was to keep a chart on each of his patients. He was not the only member of his staff to see his patients; thus, when a member of his staff met with the patient they would record their medical opinions and impressions on this client chart.

In the plaintiff's chart there were entries that stated that it was of the impression of one of the doctor's staff that the plaintiff had a degenerative back condition that was present before the car accident with the defendant. The defense moved to enter the plaintiff's medical chart into evidence; however, the plaintiff's counsel objects.

The court in this case overruled the objection holding that where a medical record is regularly and customarily kept during the course of business, it will be admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule of evidence.

Thus, because this court allowed the defense to enter this medical chart into evidence, the plaintiff was unable to prove that it was more likely than not that her back conditions were the result of the car accident with the defendant. The plaintiff was only able to recover a minimum amount in damages.

Continue reading "Arnold v. Wallace Discusses Medical Evidence in North Carolina Car Accident Cases" »

If you have been involved in a Carolina car accident, it is important to have a Carolina injury attorney advocating for your rights.

Thompson v. Nguyen is a recent car accident case out of Mississippi. Thompson (plaintiff) was in her vehicle stopped at a red light. Nguyen (defendant) stopped behind Thompson. While stopped at the red light, defendant reached for her purse and upon doing that her foot slipped off of the brake. Nguyen's car then bumped into Thompson's car causing a very minor car accident. Neither of the cars were damaged so upon trading drivers information, the parties left the scene of the accident without calling the police. Thompson later called the defendant to request that they go to the police station to get a police report for their insurance providers. Nguyen agreed and the police report was completed.

After a few days of neck pain, plaintiff went to see her doctor, Dr. James Martin (Martin). Martin was already treating plaintiff for migraines, but the plaintiff's complaints about the neck pain were new. The MRI that was conducted on the plaintiff's neck showed disc bulges that were a sign of a preexisting degenerative-disc disease. Martin ordered plaintiff to have a neck x-ray, an ultrasound and treatment from a physical therapist.

Plaintiff received physical therapy for two years, at which time her discomfort and pain did not stop. Plaintiff complained that she was suffering from neck pain, insomnia, depression and headaches. The physical therapist then referred plaintiff to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Kesterson (Kesterson). Upon evaluating the plaintiff, Kesterson conducted a surgery on plaintiff's neck to treat her abnormal disks.

Plaintiff sued defendant claiming that the defendant had been negligent and this negligence caused her neck injuries. Defendant admitted that she was at fault but she argued that the minor accident could not have caused such extensive neck injuries.

The basis of most car accident cases is negligence. Negligence is used to describe a civil wrong where a person fails to act as a reasonably prudent person would in the similar circumstances. It is not a requisite that the act be intentional, only that the person be acting with recklessness or carelessness. The plaintiff in the case has the burden of proving all of the four elements of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not. The four elements of negligence that the plaintiff must prove are that: the defendant had a specific duty of care; the defendant breached the duty of care required; this breach was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and that there are provable damages.

When medical experts testify as to the causation of a parties injuries, they must show with reasonable medical probability that the parties symptoms were caused or aggravated by an accident caused by the defendant.

The medical experts plaintiff offered testified that the migraines and disc bulges were present before the car accident with the defendant. Also, the experts testified that because the degenerative-disc disease was preexisting the car accident had not caused the disc bulging but may have only aggravated the disease. Furthermore, the experts who testified had no knowledge of the circumstances of the accident only the medical condition.

With evidence presented that the plaintiff had been in a prior accident with a drunk driver, the defense argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the accident plaintiff had with the defendant caused these injuries.

Where there is insufficient proof of causation, the court asks a jury to determine the amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to, if any. In this case a jury granted the plaintiff only the amount of physical therapy and no additional compensation.

Continue reading "North Carolina Car Accidents: A Look at Thompson v. Nguyen" »

This case illustrates the extensive confusion that can arise when determining liability in North Carolina car accident cases. If you have been involved in a car accident, it is important to have an experienced Carolina injury attorney to help you identify the liable parties in your lawsuit.

Arvizu, et al. v. Puckett stems from a car accident between Cantu and Juana Arvizu (plaintiff). Cantu was driving a pickup truck owned by Puckett Auto Sales while he was working for the Montgomery County Auto Auction (MCAA). The question for the court centered on whether a person can be under the control of two parties simultaneously. Basically, the court looks to the elements of the principal-agent relationship.

Agency law is an area of law governing liability impositions on third parties for the negligence of their employee. Essentially, an employer can be held liable for the negligent conduct of their employee where the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer's business or where the employee had the actual or inherent authority to act negligently.

In order to determine which parties can be held liable in this personal injury action, the court looked to the nature of Cantu's work with MCAA and Puckett. Puckett had a longstanding commercial relationship with MCAA. When the pickup truck did not sell at the action, Puckett gave MCAA the authority to deliver this pickup to another auction house. MCAA then ordered their employee Cantu to drive this pickup to the second auction house. However, as Cantu traveled to this second auction house he was involved in a car accident with plaintiff causing injuries to plaintiff and her son. Plaintiff sued MCAA, Puckett, and Cantu.

This case led the court to determine who could be held vicariously liable for Cantu's negligence. The court answered this by analyzing three questions; who was Cantu's employer, Cantu was transporting the pickup for the benefit of whom, and who was in control of Cantu.

The jury in this case found that Cantu was not Puckett's employee but MCAA's. Next it was determined that Cantu, was transporting the vehicle for Puckett's benefit and was thus under Puckett's control during his mission of transporting this vehicle. Lastly, the jury found that MCAA was also transporting the vehicle for Puckett's benefit and subject to Puckett's control. Because the last two questions are so similar the state Supreme Court had to determine whether these threshold questions were too materially similar.

Where two findings conflict as to the same material fact, the court has to determine whether the conflict is considered "fatal" to the entry of judgment. The party claiming a conflict must prove that one of the findings requires a different judgment. The court held that because it was found that Cantu was under Puckett's control while transporting the pickup, this sufficed in the establishment of nonemployee mission liability. This type of liability exists where there exists a subagency relationship. As applied to the facts of the case, MCAA was working for Puckett; Puckett was in control of the transporting of the pickup truck; and the car accident with the plaintiff's occurred while Puckett was in control. Because of these facts, the court held that Cantu and Puckett were in a subagency relationship which imposed vicarious liability on Puckett.

Further, the court found that MCAA was working for Puckett and therefore vicarious liability imposition was acceptable. Because there was a different theory for liability for MCAA and Puckett, the court found that they both can be held liable.

Continue reading "Third Party Liability in North Carolina Car Accident Cases Discussed in Arvizu v. Puckett" »

Students at Western Carolina University have just completed one of two petitions to get state transportation officials to make some improvements to the roadway conditions on a particular road near their campus. The petition came as a result of a recent and fatal North Carolina car accident in which a fellow classmate of theirs was killed and another was seriously injured, according to the Citizen Times. Their classmate died in the recent single-vehicle accident on Speedwell Road. The driver of the vehicle was seriously injured. Both students are in their early 20s.

Since the accident, students around campus have launched a petition drive on Twitter urging transportation officials to install a guardrail at a dangerous point on that roadway, at the same spot where the accident happened. Too many students know the danger all too well. So far, there have been about 600 student signatures received on the website. There is also another petition circulating the campus asking for the very same improvements from transportation officials.

Our North Carolina car accident attorneys understand that transportation officials have a responsibility to make sure that roadways are safe for motorists and other travelers. Dangers that could result in any type of accident are completely unacceptable. Road repairs should be made before someone has to experience a tragic accident and before someone is killed.

The students of WCU will soon be presenting their petitions and their requests to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). This isn't the first time that the campus has urged officials to make safety improvements on that dangerous roadway.

There was a vigil held by students at the university at the fountain in the center of campus to remember their classmate, a junior who was majoring in psychology.

"We're a tightknit family. It really hurts," said student body president T.J. Eaves.

The fatal car accident happened as the vehicle that the young girl was riding in flew off of the road, over an embankment, slammed into a tree and flipped over. Officials are still investigating the crash. Weather, speed and other factors have not been released yet. The speed limit on that road is 30 miles per hour.

When the accident happened, there was a baseball game in session at the school's field nearby. Game attendees heard the wreck and called 9-1-1.

Joel Setzer, the state's DOT division engineer, said that officials are going to look into the accident to see what kind of improvements may be needed on that roadway, if any. This is a common response from transportation officials to fatal accident scenes. Students are just hoping that the investigation warrants some changes!

Continue reading "Scary Roadway and Fatal North Carolina Car Accident Launches WCU Petitions to Officials" »

No one is ever prepared to receive notification that a loved one has been killed in a drunk driving accident in Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Asheville or elsewhere. The news is difficult to take even when you suspect the bad news is coming. Sadly, very few police officers or other people who give death notifications are trained or prepared to deliver the devastating news to parents, grandparents, spouses, siblings, or other family members or loved ones.

In most instances, Statesville car accident attorneys don't have dealings with family members in the early stages of being notified of a death or injury. Family members contact us when they want justice to be served or a family member deserves compensation for severe injuries sustained in a crash. Drunk-driving accident attorneys are empathetic to what families are going through and fight for the rights of victims and families to get the compensation they deserve.

According to a recent article in USA Today, the way death notification is given to a family member has a tremendous impact on how traumatic the experience may be for him or her following the news. Last year, almost 33,000 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents, which means a minimum of that many loved ones had to be told that a family member would not be returning home. Approximately a third of the family members had to hear their loved one was killed by a drunk driver.

A 14-year veteran studying death notifications and an associate professor in the Department of Counseling at the University of Georgia recently commented that several things can help ease the trauma when delivering devastating news. A person hearing the news for the first time may be more traumatized when a police officer seems aloof, holds back information or gets the news by phone as opposed to hearing it in person by a police officer who is empathetic and offers their condolences.

Because the news is so devastating and hard to deliver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has taken initiatives to help police and other first-responders on how to serve death notifications more succinctly. MADD representatives have been working with law enforcement officers since 1988 on how to train these individuals to be better at death notification. In 1995, MADD received a federal grant to develop a standardized training program for death notification.

In 2001, a study by the University of Florida found that over 40 percent of police officers had no experience or classroom knowledge of how to deliver news to family members that someone had been hurt or seriously injured in a car accident. In addition, 70 percent of the group studied admitted they had already had to notify at least one family of a death announcement.

Each year, 700 to 1,400 police officers now receive death notification training from MADD through the standardized training program. Training includes:

-A four- to five-hour training session to learn how to notify family members in person that a loved one has been killed by a drunk driver or other car-related accident.

-The availability of wallet cards that can be handed out by police officers when family members or victims need to speak to someone about mourning or need support from someone who has already experienced the same grief.

-Trainees can attend a national conference that offers sessions specific to police officers and death notifications.

Future plans include launching a course online by October 2012.

Continue reading "Receiving Notification of a Fatal North Carolina Drunk-Driving Accident Can be Traumatic" »

A recent survival story involving a 9-year-old girl that did what it took to stay alive following a North Carolina car accident that killed her father is both tragic and heartwarming all at the same time. Independent Online News reports the young girl survived the crash alone for nearly two days by eating cold Pop-Tarts, snacks and drinking Gatorade while lying next to her father who was killed in the crash.

Statesville car accident lawyers know how difficult it is for an adult to survive an accident for nearly two days let alone a young child who didn't have the guidance of an adult to assist her through this difficult time.

The father and daughter duo were on their way home in Cove City when the father lost control of the car and the vehicle ended up overturned in a ditch 16 feet below the driving surface. The child's father was found dead in the driver's seat. The 9-year-old survived below-freezing temperatures while wearing a coat, rationing food and keeping hydrated for 43 hours following the accident. The child attempted to dig herself out of the vehicle but was unsuccessful as she was upside down in the vehicle.

USA Today reports that ironically the child's mother was searching for her daughter and was also involved in an accident within 100 feet of where her daughter was trapped. Rescuers did not locate the vehicle involved in the first accident while attending to the accident involving the child's mother despite screams being made by the young child trapped inside the vehicle. It wasn't until almost 24 hours later that a person walking discovered the overturned vehicle lying in the ravine. The person called 911 and rescuers were able to help the child to safety.

Stories like these are reminders that with a little planning car accident victims can survive the aftermath of a potentially dangerous car crash. Winter weather can often make driving conditions more dangerous so there is no time like the present to place a car safety kit in your vehicle. Many retailers offer a pre-made safety kit but putting together your own is simple and may be more cost-efficient. The safety kit should contain the following items:

-Thermal blanket or heavy sleeping bag.

-Large flashlight with extra batteries.

-A knife or sharp cutting blade.

-Plastic cover with tissues or paper towels for sanitary purposes.

-Kitty litter or sand to help with traction and a shovel.

-Several bottles of water and dry or perishable foods and snacks.

-First-aid kit which contains bandages, gauze, wraps, rubbing alcohol, ointments, aspirin among other treatment remedies.

-Extra clothing like sweaters, sweatpants, heavy jackets or thermal underwear.

Once you have the kit put together, place as many items as you can in a backpack or travel bag. Put the emergency items in the bag and place in the back seat of your vehicle. Items that don't fit in the bag can be put in the back seat or trunk for storage.

Increase your chances of survival by preparing for the worst and having an emergency survival kit handy in the back seat of your vehicle at all times.

Continue reading "North Carolina Child Survivor Story a Reminder for Motorists to Consider Travel Safety Kit" »

Tragedy hit a family from New York City recently when the SUV they were traveling in flipped over several times on I-95 near Wilson. According to FOX News, it appears that the driver lost control of the vehicle after a rear tire experienced a blowout.

Our Greensboro car accident attorneys are deeply saddened by this accident. We recently posted on our North Carolina Personal Injury Lawyers Blog about the dangers of tire blowouts, especially in extremely hot temperatures.

The North Carolina accident killed a grandmother, mother and daughter -- three generations of one family. All three victims were ejected from the vehicle. The family was returning from a trip to Florida where they had gone to Disney World. The 22 year-old daughter was driving when the blowout occurred, causing her to lose control. There were five other family members in the SUV who were not seriously hurt in the crash.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) between 2005 and 2009, nearly 3,400 people died in car crashes related to tire issues and an additional 116,000 were injured. Roughly 33,000 people are hurt and 600 people die each year in crashes due to poor tire pressure.

Hot temperatures can cause heat stress to your vehicle's tires, which can lead to a blowout causing a deadly crash. A recently released survey indicated that most drivers, both male and female, don't know the correct way to check tire pressure nor have basic tire information. Most car owners have no idea where to find the right inflation pressure for their tires. Sadly, drivers wash their vehicle more often than they check the tire pressure and over 50 percent of drivers don't know when it is time to get new tires.

Properly reacting to a tire blowout could mean the difference between life and death. When hearing the BANG of your tire blowing out, most drivers jerk the wheel, stomp on the brakes and head to the side of the roadway. Though these reactions are typical, they could make matters worse.

Be prepared before the incident happens, which means have both hands on the steering wheel. The correct way to handle a blowout is to maintain your speed, don't step on the brake and steer gently in the opposite direction that your vehicle is pulling towards. Once you have control of the vehicle then slow down and start heading for the side of the roadway.

The NHTSA reported that 77 percent of passenger vehicle occupants involved in fatal crashes that were ejected died, according to 2008 data. Roughly 35 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities were involved in rollover crashes. In 2008, SUVs had the most occupant fatalities in fatal rollover type crashes at 58 percent, followed by pickup trucks with 48 percent, vans had 35 percent and passenger cars had 25 percent.

Continue reading "North Carolina Tire Blowout Causes Family to Mourn Following Fatal Car Accident" »

Tragically, yesterday, a car crash involving a North Carolina trooper claimed the lives of two people. According to media reports, a 56-year-old woman and an 11-year-old girl died in Guilford County after their vehicle was hit by a patrol car driven by a trooper who was chasing another driver. Two other children who had also been passengers in the woman's car were injured and required hospitalization.

Last week, Raleigh's ABC11 News reported that in 2009, North Carolina Highway Patrol troopers were involved in an average of 7 North Carolina car crashes a week. According to the report, that number represented a 44% increase over the number of similar crashes reported for 2008. ABC News also noted that 3 people had been killed in car crashes involving troopers in 2009; many more were injured, and some of them sued the Highway Patrol, arguing that the troopers' negligence was responsible for their injuries, property damage, or emotional distress.

In a recent study, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia evaluated 334 parents whose children had been injured in traffic accidents and had been hospitalized as a result. The study found that one month after the injury, 37% of the parents were experiencing what the study called "significant traumatic stress symptoms." The study's lead author emphasized the fact that a traumatic injury to a child impacts the entire family, and stressed the need for the other family members, especially the parents, to find support for themselves as well, as they help the children recover. A website set up by the Children's Hospital, www.AfterTheInjury.org, offers tips for parents whose children have suffered traumatic injuries, as well as other resources to help families handle the consequences of such accidents.

Continue reading "North Carolina Child and Woman Killed, Two Others Injured, in Collision with Highway Patrol Car" »