Wrongful Death - Tractor Trailer

The decedent, a 59 year old woman, was seated in the front passenger seat of a car which was run off the highway by an 18 wheel tractor trailer truck. Four surviving passengers in the car suffered varying degrees of personal injury. The wreck occurred when the tractor trailer moved from the right lane a couple of feet into the left lane. The car was in the right lane in the blind spot of the truck. The car veered to the right off the highway, rolling over several times. The physical evidence was inconclusive as to whether there was physical contact between the truck and the car. The plaintiff relied upon North Carolina's "no contact" rule as set forth in N.C.P.I. — Civil (MV) 102.24, in arguing that whether there was contact between the vehicles was irrelevant, and that the truck driver's negligence caused the wreck. The trooper who investigated the accident did not cite or charge either driver. The investigation report concluded that the truck driver changed lanes improperly and that the driver of the car "overcorrected and panicked" which caused her to lose control of the car. The lawsuit named both drivers and the trucking company as defendants. The wrongful death case and the personal injury cases settled at the mediated settlement conference.

Trip and Fall - Other Falls - Warning Sign

The plaintiff, a 49 year old woman, tripped and fell over a 4 inch step at an eye center as she was leaving the building. She fractured both of her ankles. She was accompanying her 83 year old father-in-law who had just been treated. The step was located at the threshold of an interior glass door which led from the waiting room of the building to the front vestibule. There were warning signs posted on both sides of the door which stated, "Please Watch Your Step". At least four other visitors to the building had tripped and fallen over the same step (with the same warning sign on the door) in the twelve years prior the plaintiff's fall. Another visitor tripped and fell over the step three months after the plaintiff, at which point the floor of the vestibule was raised to eliminate the step. The plaintiff's expert witness was very helpful in addressing issues relating the North Carolina Building Code and ANSI provisions. The case settled two weeks before trial.

Moped - Hip and Femur Fractures - Cocaine

The plaintiff, a 78 year old man, was driving a moped on a city street. The defendant drove her car from a side street into the path of the plaintiff and struck the plaintiff. The plaintiff fractured both of his femurs and hips. He underwent surgery requiring the installation of rods, plates, and screws. The defendant alleged contributory negligent on the grounds that the plaintiff tested positive for cocaine in blood tests administrated at the emergency room. The case presented an issue regarding the admissibility of the emergency room blood tests. The case also presented an issue whether the plaintiff's cocaine use was a proximate cause of the collision. The case settled at the mediated settlement conference.

Cheerleader - Closed Head Injury - Traumatic Brain Injury

The plaintiff, a 14 year old girl, was a member of the junior varsity cheerleading team at a public high school. She was injured as the team warmed up before a JV football game. The plaintiff was the flyer in a four person stunt group. The stunt group initially attempted to stunt on the grass. Because the grass was wet, the girls' hands and shoes were slick. The girls asked permission from the cheerleading coach, a 23 year old first year coach and teacher, to move from the grass to a paved area to practice stunting. The girls had never before stunted on pavement. The cheerleading coach granted permission. The girls had no towels to dry their hands and shoes. The first stunt which the stunt group attempted on the pavement was an elite stunt, a full extension 360 with a cradle landing. The plaintiff slipped through the hands of the bases and the back spotter, hitting her head on the pavement. She suffered a basilar skull fracture, bilateral subdural hematomas with midline shift, and subarachnoid hemorrhaging. After hospitalization and occupational therapy, the plaintiff eventually returned to school and later graduated. She experienced permanent mild cognitive deficits and problems with disinhibition.

The lawsuit against the school system alleged that the coach was negligent by allowing the girls to stunt on the pavement and by failing to properly train the stunt group by use of progressions. Proof of liability required analysis and application of the Spirit Rules Book of the National Federation of State High School Associations. Both parties in the case relied upon cheerleading safety experts to advance their respective positions. The plaintiff's treating neuropychologist documented the plaintiff's deficits resulting from the closed head injury. A structured settlement was reached prior to trial.

Blind Person Injured – Seeing-Eye Dog Killed - Bus Stop - Hit and Run - Drunk Driver Alford Plea - Dram Shop

The plaintiff was a 23 year old blind woman. She and her Seeing-Eye dog were standing at a sidewalk bus stop on a weekday morning when a drunk driver drove his car onto the sidewalk, struck the plaintiff and her dog, drove back onto the street and left the scene. The plaintiff suffered a closed head injury and a broken leg. Her beloved dog was killed. The plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress due to the death of her dog. The defendant was arrested 30 minutes after the incident in his apartment, 1/4 mile from the scene, and charged with hit and run and DWI. His car was located in front of his apartment. He blew a .16 on the breath test.

The defendant worked at a local bar. He got off of work at approximately 3:00 a.m. on the morning in question. He remained on the premises to drink beer. The defendant testified that someone else was driving his car at the time of the wreck, but he could not identify or locate any such person. In the criminal case, the defendant plead guilty, pursuant to State vs. Alford, to felony hit and run and DWI.

The lawsuit included dram shop claims against the bar, the manager of the bar, and the supervisor of the bar. The claims against the driver consisted of claims for bodily injury, reckless infliction of emotional distress, property damage, and punitive damages. The dram shop claims were resolved pursuant to a negotiated settlement. The claims against the driver went to trial. A jury verdict was returned in the plaintiff's favor with respect to all claims.

The trial presented two issues of first impression in North Carolina - whether the defendant's Alford plea in a criminal case constituted an admission in the civil case, and whether the plaintiff's extreme emotional distress resulting from the death of her dog gave rise to a claim for severe emotional distress. The case also presented issues concerning the FBI's forensic examination of dog hairs collected from the bumper of the defendant's car, and issues concerning the SBI's forensic examination of human tissue collected from the bumper of the car.

Temporary Contract Worker – Hand Injury - Industrial Manufacturer

The plaintiff was a 32 year old man employed by a temporary employment agency. He was assigned to work in a factory where his left hand was crushed, mangled, and burned in an injection-molding machine. He lost his entire left thumb and at least portions of every finger on that hand. He underwent numerous surgeries, most of which related to the dissection of what remained of his index finger and its transplantation to the thumb position. Through the miraculous efforts of the plaintiff’s surgeon, limited function was restored to the plaintiff’s left hand. Even with some use of the hand, the plaintiff was rendered permanently disabled. He could no longer perform manual labor.

A worker’s compensation claim was pursued against the temporary employment agency. A negligence lawsuit filed against the corporate manufacturer alleged that the manufacturer installed an improper safety switch on the door of the machine and failed to adequately train the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in placing his hand under the injection nozzle of the machine while cleaning it. The case hinged on effectively explaining the mechanics of magnetic induction safety switches and why the defendant’s installation of such a switch on a machine where ferrous metal tools were used was extremely dangerous. With the assistance of the plaintiff’s expert witness, a mechanical engineer specializing in workplace safety issues, the plaintiff showed it was reasonable to believe that the machine would shut down when he opened the door of the machine. The plaintiff cleaned the injection nozzle as he had been trained. A structured settlement was reached prior to trial.

Concert Patron – Dislocated Hip and Femur Fracture – Security Guard – Excessive Force

The plaintiff was a 34 year old man attending an outdoor concert. The plaintiff became somewhat intoxicated while at the concert and began “play-wrestling” with friends. Muscle-bound private security guards wearing “Security” t-shirts were in the process of escorting the plaintiff out of the concert when one of the security guards, without provocation, body-slammed the plaintiff to the ground. This caused the dislocation of the plaintiff’s right hip and the fracture of his right femoral head. The injury required surgery (open reduction and internal fixation of the fractures) and the permanent insertion of 4 screws in the fracture site.

The lawsuit was filed against the private security services company. Difficulties in the case included proving the facts through the testimony of the plaintiff and his friends, most all of whom had been drinking alcoholic beverages. The North Carolina Private Protective Services Act (Chapter 74C of the North Carolina General Statutes) provided the plaintiff access to the names and photographs of the security guards, the liability insurance policies, and other useful information. The case settled prior to trial.

Beautician – Hand Injury – UIM Arbitration

The plaintiff was a 35 year old beautician who suffered a tear of her ulnar collateral ligament (commonly known as a games-keeper injury) in her right thumb in a car wreck. The liability insurance carrier tendered its policy limit, thereby triggering the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit and demanded arbitration before a three-person arbitration panel pursuant to the terms of her automobile insurance policy. The testimony of the plaintiff’s treating hand specialist persuaded the arbitration panel that the plaintiff had suffered a serious injury, and that it affected her ability to use sheers for extended periods. The arbitration panel granted an award, which recognized the seriousness of the injury to the plaintiff.

9 Year Old Child – Eye Injury – Toy Rocket Manufacturer – Products Liability

The plaintiff was a 9 year old boy who suffered an injury to his right eye while playing with a toy stomp rocket. The stomp rocket was designed to be used on flat paved surfaces with the rocket traveling horizontally across the pavement. The toy had a rubber air bladder which when stomped on, forced air into a plastic tube referred to as the launch tube. The rocket slipped onto the launch tube. The air pressure in the launch tube propelled the rocket from the launch tube. The rocket had a hard plastic pointed tip.

The plaintiff’s friend received the stomp rocket as a birthday present on the afternoon of the accident. Before the friend’s mother had an opportunity to inspect the birthday presents for safety, the plaintiff and his friend began playing with the stomp rocket in the friend’s front yard. After a few disappointing launches on the lawn, the plaintiff decided to try to get the rocket airborne. He propped up the launch tube at a 45° angle on a railroad tie being used as a border for a flower bed. When he stomped on the air bladder, the launch tube simultaneously redirected straight upward at a 90° angle. The rocket launched directly into the right eye of the plaintiff who was looking down at the air bladder as he stomped it.

The lawsuit alleged that the toy was designed defectively and that the representation on the packaging that the toy was appropriate for children ages 6 and over was wrong. The plaintiff contended that the ½ inch long rubber hose connecting the air bladder to the launch tube should have been longer to prevent the launch tube from redirecting. The plaintiff also contended that the tip of the rocket was unnecessarily hard and pointed. The deposition testimony of the design engineer for the toy manufacturer proved critical to a favorable settlement for the plaintiff. He testified that the accident could not have happened as described by the plaintiff. He contended the rubber hose between the air bladder and the launch tube would have pinched off the air to the launch tube had the launch tube been positioned at a 45° angle when the air bladder was stomped upon. A reenactment of the plaintiff’s version of the accident performed at the deposition clearly proved that the rubber hose would not pinch off the air to the launch tube. In fact, the rocket crashed into the ceiling of the conference room where the deposition was taken. The manufacturer’s design engineer then contended that the toy must have been tampered with. This contention proved unpersuasive. Also critical to a favorable disposition was the testimony of the plaintiff’s toy safety expert and the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating ophthalmologist who effectively explained the seriousness of the injury to the plaintiff. The case settled prior to trial.

Lessee – Unfair Trade Practice Against Shopping Center Owner – Jury Verdict

The plaintiff was a local restaurateur who was leasing restaurant space at a local shopping center. The complaint alleged that the owner/manager of the shopping center unfairly terminated his lease, thereby costing the plaintiff substantial loss of profits, expenditures for improvements to the rental space, and other consequential damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the defendant’s actions constituted an unfair trade practice, trebled the damages, and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The case settled after the defendant was unsuccessful on appeal.

Spectator – Wrestler – Head/Neck/Back Injuries

The plaintiff was a 50 year old male attending a lower tier championship wrestling match being held at a local beer hall. The plaintiff attended with his 15 year old son. One of the wrestlers attempted a stunt whereby he jumped outside of the ring from the top rope. The wrestler was supposed to jump onto the shoulders of two of his opponents standing in front of a short rail separating the wrestling area from the audience. The wrestler flew over his opponents and landed on the plaintiff who was standing in the audience. The plaintiff was knocked unconscious temporarily and was transported by the rescue squad to a hospital emergency room. He suffered a closed head injury and sprain/strain injuries to his neck and back.

The lawsuit alleged negligence on the part of the beer hall owner/operator, the wrestling league, and the wrestler who botched the dangerous stunt. A videotape of the wrestling match proved critical in proving the plaintiff’s allegations. A settlement was reached before trial.

Shopper – Knee Fracture – Slip and Fall – Handicap Curb Ramp

The plaintiff was a 38 year old woman who slipped and fell shattering her left knee as she was leaving a store at an outdoor shopping center. It was raining slightly as the plaintiff walked onto the sidewalk and stepped on a handicap curb ramp that was painted yellow. The curb ramp was cut into the concrete sidewalk that led to the parking lot. As soon as the plaintiff stepped on the curb ramp, her foot slipped as if on ice, causing her to fall on her left knee. The plaintiff underwent two surgeries as a result of the fall – an open reduction and internal fixation of the lateral tibial plateau fracture which installation of a four hole buttress plate, screws, and a bank bone graft, and an arthroscopy of her knee with debridement of the patellofemoal joint.

The lawsuit alleged that the condition and construction of the curb ramp violated the requirements of the North Carolina Handicapped Code. Though yellow paint on a concrete curb cut is appropriate, the paint is required to be non-slip paint. The paint used on the curb cut in question was glossy paint which did not contain any non-slip characteristic. The curb ramp was also slanted improperly. The plaintiff’s expert witness, an architect and civil engineer specializing in construction issues related to the Americans With Disabilities Act, proved critical in explaining the technical deficiencies in the construction and maintenance of the handicap curb ramp. The case settled prior to trial.

Hero – Fractured Foot – Drunkard

The plaintiff was a 28 year old man walking through a parking deck in the early morning hours after closing time at nearby beer parlors. Two young women were walking ahead of the plaintiff in the parking deck. The defendant, a 25 year old man who was extremely intoxicated, hit one of the young women in the face with his fist. Neither of the young women knew the defendant. The plaintiff ran to the rescue, shoved the defendant away from the women, and was in the process of teaching the defendant a lesson when the defendant jumped into the driver’s seat of his companion’s car in an effort to escape. The defendant’s companion, who had previously gotten into his car to leave, had exited his car to see what the commotion was about and to try to urge the defendant to leave. The defendant’s companion left the keys in the ignition. The defendant cranked the car and proceeded to attempt to leave the scene when he realized he had turned the wrong way in the parking deck. After traveling a few yards in the direction away from the exit, the defendant threw the car in reverse and floored it, crashing into a cylindrical concrete barrier, which was approximately 4 feet high and 9 inches in diameter. With the accelerator still floored, the car pushed the concrete barrier 20 feet across the parking deck until it knocked down the plaintiff. The car came to rest on top the concrete barrier with the plaintiff’s left foot pinned under the barrier. One of the rear tires was spinning in the air at full throttle just inches above the plaintiff’s head. After a few seconds, the defendant fell out of the driver’s side door onto the parking deck, unconscious. The defendant was charged with assaulting the young woman, DWI, reckless driving, and various other charges. The plaintiff suffered a compound fracture of his left ankle requiring hospitalization and surgery.

The case presented numerous legal issues, including whether the defendant was operating the car with the implied consent of his companion and whether the defendant’s striking of the plaintiff with the concrete barrier was intentional, or in the alternative, just grossly negligent. These issues were important in determining which insurance policies provided coverage. The lawsuit settled prior to trial.

Motorist – Anosmia

The plaintiff was a 66 year old motorist rear-ended on the highway. Though wearing a lap belt and shoulder harness, she suffered significant injuries to both the front and back of her head. CT scans showed a frontal subarachnoid hemorrhage and soft tissue swelling, as well as a posterior occipital fracture. She also had a deep right posterior occipital laceration that was approximately 6 cm in length requiring 5 sutures and 14 skin staples to close.

The plaintiff suffered the permanent loss of her senses of taste and smell – a condition known as anosmia. Anosmia is typically caused by trauma to the head. The plaintiff’s neurosurgeon stated that the plaintiff’s condition was a direct result of the shearing forces of the collision and that the prospect for return of the senses of smell and taste is not good. The case settled for policy limits prior to filing a lawsuit.

Traumatic Brain Injury – Herniated Disc – Scapula Fracture – UIM Arbitration

The plaintiff, a middle-aged man, was injured when the defendant ran a red light and crashed into the plaintiff’s car.  The plaintiff’s car rolled three times, causing a closed head injury, the rupture of discs at C5-6 and C6-7, and a fractured scapula.  The plaintiff experienced severe headaches and mild cognitive deficits from the head trauma.  A brain MRI revealed punctate white matter lesions in the frontal lobes.  The plaintiff was referred to a neuropsychologist for pain management and biofeedback training.  The Plaintiff tried conservative treatments, including physical therapy, acupuncture, and trigger point injections, to get relief from the neck pain.  None of these treatments helped.  He eventually underwent surgery, a cervical laminotomy and foraminotomy, which alleviated the worse of his neck pain.  A complicating aspect of the case was the fact that the plaintiff had been convicted of a series of very serious felonies.  The plaintiff’s criminal record would have been devastating to the case had the case gone before a jury. 

The liability carrier paid its policy limit.  The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit and included his underinsured motorist carrier as an unnamed defendant.  Under the terms of his insurance contract, the plaintiff demanded that the claim be arbitrated before a panel of three arbitrators.  Though the arbitration panel did not like the plaintiff’s criminal record, it was not inflamed by the plaintiff’s criminal history to the extent that a jury would have been.  The panel awarded fair compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries.