Fayetteville Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics

College Sued For Alcohol Related Death Of Student

Brent Adams — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:12:00 GMT

In Utah, there has been a recent death that has been related to drinking on a college campus.

In this event the family of the young college student is actually suing the school for wrongful death.

The parents have alleged that the school should be responsible for the actions and activities that occur for all of the students that are living on the campus. The family believes that there should be some way to police all of the activities involving school organizations including fraternities. This should extend to all of the activities that are out there whether they are on or off campus.

In this case, the two parties who are said to be at fault are the state and the school. The family of the boy who died, Michael Starks is the result of the two parties not doing all that was possible to keep the boy out of trouble and alive.

If you feel as though you are related to someone who has been the victim of wrongful death. Then you may want to look at all of the different options and consider taking the things to the personal injury lawyer. Consider all of the options that the attorney will present to you and to see how they will best build the case for you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Two Motorcyclists Killed When Driver Crosses Center Line

Brent Adams — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:01:40 GMT

A couple, traveling through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park became victims in a fatal accident. The victims have been identified in the crash as a couple who were traveling from South Carolina. As reported by Park Ranger Bob Miller, the two involved in the crash were 55-year-old Charles Earl Bolt and his wife Diane K. Bolt, 55. Mr. Bolt was driving the motorcycle.

The two were killed in a tragic accident in which a sport utility vehicle turned into oncoming traffic on U.S. 441. The SUV hit the motorcycle couple head on, killing them. Prior to hitting the motorcycle, the SUV crossed the center line and sideswiped a car. Park rangers are still trying to determine what caused the SUV to cross the center line.

Reports from eyewitnesses paint a grim picture. According to Helen Kelly, who is from New York, but was driving along the stretch of highway heading into North Carolina, the vehicle appeared to have rolled and eventually landed in a ditch. She reported that the roof of the vehicle was crumpled. Those in the SUV were without any serious injuries, officials informed.

The wreck occurred just south of the Tennessee state line border, around 11:45 a.m. While the investigation is still being looked into, it is unclear what may have caused the accident in the first place. The name of the driver, as well as any occupants in the SUV has yet to be named.

In an incident like this, individuals have the right to know what happened to their loved one. If there is foul play, such as a driver that was not capable of driving properly was behind the wheel, the tragic and preventable deaths of these people should be fought for. Although there is no word yet on the cause of this accident, it is understood that these deaths may have been preventable.

If you have suffered at the hands of another, such as in a traffic accident or a motorcycle accident, contact a personal injury attorney today to start working on your case. There are laws that can help you to cover medical costs, damaged property costs and even compensate you for your pain. Personal injury lawyers can help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Beware of Salmonella

Brent Adams — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:45:06 GMT

As with anything that can lead to an illness there is always worry and despair. This is especially the case if it is a disease that is caused from poor food handling by someone else. There is a case in Virginia involving peanut butter which has yet to be resolved. There has been an extension granted to people who intend to file a case against the company that was allegedly responsible for the outbreak of food poisoning. Previously, there was a national scare concerning whether people could eat peanut butter and whether any of the products with peanuts could be eaten.

The entire country was scared and everyone felt as if they should never touch peanut butter or peanut products again. This is how anyone would feel if they were to contract a food borne illness on any level. They would never want to eat that food again.

If you feel as if this is something that you think may have happened to you at any time you will need to consider all of the possibilities as well as the options that are available to you in regards to what can happen. Look out for outbreaks or possibilities of occurrences that may happen to you.

If you feel as though you have suffered from afood borne illness and know what may have been the cause for your discomfort and pain then you will want to contact a personal injury lawyer so they can assist you and determine next steps for you to take.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Penalty for Lack of Workers' Compensation Insurance Determined by Law in North Carolina

Margaret Embry — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:27:45 GMT

A former employee of a car wash in North Carolina has sued the car wash business for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident, according to Risk & Insurance Online. After the accident, the worker was awarded disability benefits and medical benefits, but the employer never obtained a valid workers' compensation insurance policy. This insurance policy is required in North Carolina for all employers with more than three full-time employees. If the employer fails to obtain workers' compensation insurance, a mandatory monetary penalty of $50 per day from the date of the accident is to be collected.

The employee injured at the car wash argued that the penalty should go back to when the business was established in 1988 when the employer initially failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance, as opposed to the Industrial Commission's ruling that the monetary penatly only goes back to the date of the accident. The case was taken to the Court of Appeals which agreed with the employee that the Commission had made an improper calculation and the penalty should go back to 1988. The Court of Appeals noted

that the monetary penalty for failure to secure workers' comp coverage is not within the discretion of the court but is determined by the law. It noted the employer admitted that he never secured workers' compensation insurance for his business.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Margaret Embry

Hazards Of Working With Parts Washing Machines

Brent Adams — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:56:58 GMT

The use of parts washing machines which use recycled solvents cause a serious hazard to workers.

These parts washing machines are periodically filled with solvent which degreases parts for auto and industrial customers. These machines remove the used “dirty” solvent and recycle it for further use.

The machine consists of a drum partially filled with a solvent, a pump to push the solvent through a hose with a brush attached to it, and a sink in which the operator washes and scrubs parts to degrease and clean them with the solvent. Larger models use a tank instead of a drum.

These machines are defective for two reasons. First, they lack a local exhaust ventilation devise to remove vapors from workers breathing zones, to prevent workers operating these machines from inhaling the toxic vapors. Second, the machine lacks a barrier or guard to prevent solvent from splashing onto the machine operators.

From ordinary use of the machine, workers inhale toxic vapors from solvent aerosols that form as the solvent flows through the hose into the air in an open system, and from vapors that form as volatile components evaporate in the air.

Also, solvent splashes onto the skin of workers operating the machine from normal use.

This solvent is contaminated with many toxic chemicals which are especially harmful to the liver and kidneys.

Many lawsuits have been brought against the manufacturers of these parts washing machines and the solvent which is used in the machines, because of serious illnesses which have been caused by the users of these machines. Among the adverse condition are leukemia and hematological malignancies, other cancers, liver and kidney disease, neuropathies and other diseases.

Workers may also have workers compensation claims against their employers if they are unable to work or need medical treatment as a result of working with or near these parts washing machines.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Back Injuries Compensable Without Accident

Brent Adams — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:41:00 GMT

A worker who injured his or her back while working may recover workers’ compensation benefits for this back injury even if the injury did not result from an accident. Ordinarily, in order to recover workers’ compensation the worker must have been injured in an “accident” such as a fall. However, with respect to back injuries, North Carolina law provides that a worker may recover for such injury if it is a result of a “specific traumatic incident”. An example of a specific traumatic incident would occur for example if a worker were lifting heavy boxes and felt a sudden “catch” or pain in his back. This incident would not technologically be considered an “accident”. Nevertheless, with respect to back injuries, such an event could result in the worker receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

With respect to all other body parts however, such as injuries to the hand, foot, leg, or shoulder, the injury must have been caused by an “accident”.

North Carolina laws defines “accident” as: The interruption of the work routine and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions.

There are other injuries or illnesses for which a worker can recover workers’ compensation benefits even in the absence of an accident. For instance, if a worker suffers an occupational disease as a direct result of the work environment, workers’ compensation benefits could be recovered. An example of occupational disease would be brown lung disease caused by exposure to cotton dust and asbestosis caused by exposure to asbestos. One very common occupational disease is carpal tunnel syndrome which is frequently caused by repetitive motions involved with the use of computer keyboards.

If you suffer an illness or other condition which you feel may have been caused or contributed to by your work environment, you should contact a lawyer to determine whether you have a claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Don’t Forget Your Own Med Pay Coverage

Brent Adams — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:40:00 GMT

We have written in previous newsletters about the importance of medical payment insurance coverage which is available as part of a car owner’s liability policy. This insurance is commonly known as “med pay” insurance. Unlike liability insurance, which all car owners are required by law to carry, med pay is optional. This med pay protection is inexpensive and every car owner should have it up to the full limits available. This insurance provides that all medical bills incurred as a result of a collision will be paid to all occupants of the insured’s car up to the limit of the med pay insurance. This is true regardless of whoever was at fault in causing the collision.

One very important feature of this insurance is that all named insureds on a liability insurance policy will be covered even if they are riding in a car other than the insured’s car. This feature is very beneficial when the car in which the injured person is riding is not covered by med pay insurance. In that case you can still receive med pay insurance from your own policy if you are a named insured.

The med pay coverage is considered secondary which means that you must first collect from the med pay provision of the insured’s car in which your were riding. However, after collecting the full amount of the primary insurance, you can recover for all the remaining medical bills up to the limit of your own policy. Of course, if the car in which you are riding does not have med pay insurance, then you can collect from your own med pay insurance if you are a named insured.

For instance, if you are injured in a car that has no med pay insurance and you have med pay insurance on your own policy in the amount of $2,000 and your medical bills are $4,000, you can recover $2,000 from your own insurance company. If, on the other hand, the car in which you were riding has $2,000 in med pay insurance and your medical bills are $4,000, you can receive $2,000 med pay insurance from the policy that covered the car you were riding in at the time of the collision and then you can collect the balance of your bills ($2,000) from your own insurance company, provided you have med pay coverage in an amount of at least $4,000.00.

The injured party often overlooks this additional insurance and the insurance adjuster will rarely make you aware of this additional protection.

If you are injured in a collision be sure to check all of your insurance policies to be sure to collect the full amount to which you are entitled.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Attaching Tow Chain Results In Insurance Coverage

Brent Adams — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:39:42 GMT

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that a man who was killed while attaching a chain to another man’s car was covered by the other man’s underinsured motorist policy.

As a result, the dead man’s family can recover up to $300,000.00 in underinsured motorist benefits from the insurance policy covering the car used for towing.

The deceased was driving his boss’s car when he slid into a ditch. He walked to a nearby house to get help and persuaded the homeowner to help the deceased pull the wrecked car out of the ditch. The homeowner drove the deceased back to the accident scene, parked his car on the road while the deceased connected a chain to the back of his boss’s car and crawled under the homeowner’s car to attach it to the chain. The third person came down the road and struck both cars, killing the deceased who was still underneath the homeowner’s car.

The homeowner’s car was covered by an automobile insurance policy, which provided $300,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage. Since the negligent party who struck both vehicles had only a $50,000.00 insurance policy, the deceased family made claim against the underinsured motorist policy, which insured the homeowner’s car.

This case illustrates the fact that one does not necessarily have to be the owner of the car, or even the occupant of the car to benefit from automobile liability insurance which covers that car. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled there was coverage for the deceased family because the deceased, at the time he was killed was either in contact with the homeowner’s vehicle while attaching the chain and thus was “upon” the vehicle, or was in the process of attaching the chain and thus was “getting . . . on” the homeowner’s vehicle. The insurance policy in question covered the named insured, that is, the homeowner, plus any family members and “any other person occupying your covered auto or any other auto occupied by” the homeowner. The Court ruled that even though the deceased was not inside the insured’s car when he was killed, he was still occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident. The policy itself defines the term “occupying” as “in; upon; getting in; on; out or off” the vehicle. The Court’s ruling turned upon the dictionary interpretation of those terms.

If there is any doubt as to whether there is insurance coverage for a person injured in a motor vehicle collision, an attorney should be consulted. Many times, there is coverage when at first it may appear that coverage does not exist.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Jury Service -- It’s A Privilege

Brent Adams — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:05:00 GMT

Many people dread being called to serve as a juror. In most counties in North Carolina jury service requires at least a good part of a week, because even if the citizen is not called to sit on a jury, he or she must sometimes go back and forth to Court for several days to take part in the jury selection process. Perhaps the worst part is the uncertainty of not knowing whether he or she will be called to actually sit on a case. Jury service can be disruptive to work schedules and disruptive to personal lives. Serving on a jury, however, is one of the very most important responsibilities a citizen can perform; certainly, it is one of our most important rights as citizens.

If we are all to be afforded a right to trial by jury when important issues arise, then we, as citizens, must take our turn to serve as jurors when others are involved in important issues which must be decided by a jury.

The United States of America is one of the few countries which affords its citizens the right to trial by jury. Jury trials are unheard of in totalitarian countries and in countries ruled by dictatorships. When Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was do away with the right to trial by jury. The same thing happened in Spain. In China and Cuba, most citizens have never even heard of a right to trial by jury.

The desire to ensure the right to trial by jury for all citizens is one of the major reasons our great country was founded. Our forefathers established from the outset that as free people, we would all have the right to trial by jury on all important issues concerning our personal liberties and freedoms and in matters involving disputes between and among citizens.

There are some people today, even in the United States, who advocate doing away with our right to trial by jury. These people argue that jury trials are not efficient. While it is true that our jury system is not as efficient as whatever judicial system Hitler had in Germany, is that kind of system what we want as a free people? Certainly not. Some inefficiencies are a small price to pay in exchange for the guarantee of our rights and freedoms as citizens.

In the United States, we don’t leave it up to the lawyers and the judges to make decisions on these issues; instead, we select juries at random from members of the community at large to sit together and make these important decisions. As jurors, you have perhaps more power than you will ever have. You have the power to right a wrong and to ensure that our judicial system works properly. If we do not have wise and thoughtful jurors to decide issues fairly and accurately and in accordance with the law, it doesn’t matter how good our judicial system looks on paper or how well the laws are written.

The next time you are chosen to sit on a jury, consider the privilege you have as a citizen and perhaps your jury service will not seem so burdensome.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Motel Chain Pays For Shooting In Franchisee’s Lot

Brent Adams — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:05:23 GMT

Days Inn of America, Inc., a national motel chain, has agreed to pay $600,000 to a 65 year old Delaware man who was shot in the stomach at the Selma Days Inn. This is true even though the Selma Days Inn was owned and operated by a franchisee separate and apart from Days Inn of America, Inc. The national chain, Days Inn of America, Inc., did not own the Selma motel property nor did any of its employee’s work at the Selma location.

The case is unusual in that it extended liability for the shooting to the franchiser who was not actively engaged in the day to day business of the Selma Days Inn, a completely separate entity.

Days Inn of America collected 6.5 percent of the gross revenues taken in by the Selma Days Inn. The national chain argued that it was a separate entity and that it did not maintain sufficient control over the local franchisee such as to establish an agency relationship.

When the case was called for trial, the Trial Judge refused to dismiss Days Inn of America, Inc., holding that evidence was sufficient to establish control on the part of the national chain and held that it must go to trial on the plaintiff’s claim.

The victim showed that the national chain controlled the local franchisee with, among other things, with its policy manual which was several hundred pages long and under which the chain controlled almost every aspect of the day to day operation of the Selma Days Inn. This policy manual covered everything from site planning to placement of wastebaskets. The chain could make surprise audits and inspections and could impose sanctions upon the franchisee if it did not strictly comply with the policy manual. The chain could deduct points for employees who were not friendly, healthful or courteous. It could require periodic training of the franchisee’s employees, including managers, who were required to wear specific uniforms.

The one area not specifically dealt with in the manual was guest safety. The victim’s lawyer argued that the chain's failure to address security did not relieve it of liability for the negligence of the franchisee. The Trial Court agreed.

Both the local motel and the franchisee were liable to the victim because the area of Exit 97 off Interstate 95 where the Selma Days Inn was located had a long history of criminal activity including a pair of armed robberies at a hotel next door just two weeks before the victim was shot. Evidence would have been that the motel franchisee and the chain failed to take adequate precautions to protect their guest, including the victim.

After the Judge refused to release the national chain, the defendants agreed to $600,000 to settle the case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams