BLOG

In a case from Moore county, a four-year-old played at the playground at the apartments where she lived. She then went through a broken portion of a chain-link fence owned by the apartment complex. She went to the adjoining land to play on a frozen pond.

The plaintiff went to a baseball game. Prior to the start of the game, he was standing near a fence near the “bullpen.” In the bullpen, a pitcher was throwing balls to a catcher. The pitcher threw a “wild pitch” (or a bad pitch) that went astray and struck the plaintiff in the face.

In December 18, 2012, the Court of Appeals held that customer who fell on the bottom step could sue the proprietor for inadequate lighting. The customer went to the defendant’s hair salon, and departed down a flight of stairs in the dark.

On August 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals held that a passenger injured by an object that fell from another vehicle (which departed the scene) cannot recover under an uninsured (hit and run) policy

On October 16, 2012, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of law, a worker was contributorily negligent in operating an electric drill near water, and his Estate could not recover for his wrongful death against other persons allegedly responsible for the death.

In this case, the plaintiff operated a logging truck. He was hauling logs from a location controlled by the defendants. He had to either get or deliver documents to a person at the site. In order to reach this person, he had to walk through an area of logs and other debris.

In Duncan v. Duncan, from June 13, 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court resolved a perplexing issue of North Carolina appellate procedure. In this case, the District Court entered a judgment on the merits of the case, saving for resolution only a claim for attorneys fees.

In Robinson v. Discovery Insurance (unpublished), decided on November 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that the insured had not been given an opportunity to select higher underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, and as a result that his UIM coverage was $1,000,000.

In Garmon v. Hagans (unpublished), decided on December 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury finding that the Plaintiff-passenger was contributorily negligent, where he voluntarily rode with an impaired driver, whose impairment contributed to the accident.

In Lloyd v. Markel Insurance (unpublished), decided on January 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed a dismissal of a claim against a UIM carrier. In this case, the claimants were injured when the tortfeasor struck the rear of a bus.