Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Martin B. Sturdivant, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, sustained a back injury while working as a corrections officer. The injury led to chronic back pain, and Sturdivant received temporary total disability payments through the workers' compensation system. As he approached the 500-week limit for these payments, he applied for extended compensation, claiming a total loss of wage-earning capacity.The North Carolina Industrial Commission denied Sturdivant's claim, concluding that he had not sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity. The Commission interpreted this phrase to mean a total loss of the ability to earn wages in any employment. Sturdivant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which rejected the Commission's interpretation. The Court of Appeals held that "total loss of wage-earning capacity" was synonymous with "total disability," incorporating a broader legal test.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the phrase "total loss of wage-earning capacity" means the complete elimination of the capacity to earn any wages. The Court clarified that this phrase does not share the same legal meaning as "total disability." The Court found that the Industrial Commission's interpretation was correct and that the Commission's findings were supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' opinion to reject its statutory interpretation but otherwise affirmed the decision. View "Sturdivant v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Debra Cullen sued Logan Developers, Inc. for injuries sustained when she fell through a hole in her attic floor, which the defendant had cut to provide access to the home’s air handler. Cullen admitted she did not look before stepping backward into the hole, despite knowing it was unsafe to walk on non-floored parts of the attic. The hole was covered with insulation, making it an open and obvious risk.The Superior Court of Brunswick County granted summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers, finding Cullen contributorily negligent for failing to look where she was stepping and determining there were insufficient facts to support a claim of gross negligence. The Court of Appeals vacated this decision, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Cullen’s knowledge of the attic’s condition and whether Logan Developers’ actions constituted gross negligence.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that Cullen was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the hole was an open and obvious risk that she could have avoided by exercising reasonable care. The court also found that Logan Developers did not exhibit the conscious disregard for Cullen’s safety necessary to prove gross negligence, even if they violated the North Carolina Building Code. Therefore, the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers was reinstated. View "Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc" on Justia Law

In this case, Officer Ashton Lambert struck and killed Gregory Graham with his police cruiser while responding to a call. Graham's estate sued Lambert, the City of Fayetteville, and the Fayetteville Police Department, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death.The trial court denied the City and Lambert's motions for summary judgment, arguing that governmental and public officer immunity barred the estate's claims. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had improperly analyzed the summary judgment order. The Court of Appeals had focused on the sufficiency of the estate's complaint, rather than the presence of a genuine factual dispute. This was incorrect, as the court should have asked whether the evidence raised a genuine factual dispute on the existence and extent of the City’s waiver of immunity.The Supreme Court also found that the estate's claim that section 20-145 waived the city's governmental immunity failed as a matter of law. The statute, which exempts police officers from speed limits when chasing or apprehending criminal absconders, does not shield officers for their gross negligence. However, the statute does not contain clear language withdrawing immunity from a discrete government body.The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to analyze whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether the City waived governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance. The court also clarified that section 20-145 does not waive the City’s governmental immunity for its officers’ grossly negligent driving. The Estate’s claim against the City remains intact unless otherwise waived by the purchase of liability insurance. View "Est. of Graham v. Lambert" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina dealt with the issue of whether a statute of limitations barred a defendant's counterclaim for negligence because it was filed one day after the three-year limitations period had expired. The court ruled that the counterclaim should be considered as having been filed on the same date that the plaintiff commenced his lawsuit, thus making it timely.The case originated from a two-automobile accident that occurred on 19 December 2015. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant over injuries he allegedly sustained in the accident on 19 December 2018. The defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for his own injuries on 20 December 2018, arguing that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting that the counterclaim should be dismissed under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) because it was filed outside the statute’s three-year limit for personal injury claims.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that his counterclaim filed on 20 December 2018 should be deemed to relate back to the filing of the original complaint by the plaintiff on 19 December 2018, and thus should be considered timely filed within the three-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reasoning that for purposes of the statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16), the filing of a compulsory counterclaim relates back to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the court held that N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) did not bar the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Upchurch v. Harp Builders, Inc" on Justia Law

A minor, Freedom Morris, sought emergency treatment for appendicitis at Vidant Medical Center and was operated on by Dr. David Rodeberg. Despite complaining of severe pain after the surgery, Morris was discharged. He returned to the hospital a day later with a fever and sharp abdominal pain. A second surgery performed by a different doctor revealed that not all of the appendix had been removed during the first operation. This had caused a ruptured appendix and infection in Morris' body. Morris underwent a third surgery to drain a pelvic abscess.More than five years after the first surgery, Morris filed a lawsuit against Dr. Rodeberg and Vidant Medical Center alleging medical malpractice and medical negligence. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the lawsuit was filed outside the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims of persons who are over ten years old but under eighteen years old when their claims accrue. The trial court denied the defendants' motions, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the three-year statute of limitations barred Morris' medical malpractice claims. The Court reasoned that while the North Carolina General Assembly has recognized that individuals under certain disabilities, including being a minor, are unable to appreciate the nature of potential legal claims and take appropriate action, subsection 1-17(c) of the North Carolina General Statutes eliminates the tolling of the medical malpractice claims of minors, except in certain situations. None of those exceptions applied to Morris' case, so his claim was subject to the standard three-year statute of limitations and was therefore time-barred. The Court did not address Morris' argument that the application of the three-year statute of limitations violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws because it did not have jurisdiction to review that issue. View "Morris v. Rodeberg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstated the opinion and award filed by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in favor of Plaintiff following a tractor-trailer accident in which Plaintiff, an employee a trucking company, sustained injury, holding that the agency's decision should not have been disturbed by the lower appellate court.After the accident, Plaintiff provided notice to her employer and its insurance carrier of the accident and of the injury her husband received in the accident but did not report injury to herself. The Commission concluded that Plaintiff's injury was causally related to the accident, that Plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not providing notice of her injury until two years later, that Defendants were not prejudiced, and that Plaintiff was totally disabled as a result of her injury. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no error in either the Commission's findings of fact or in its conclusions of law. View "Sprouse v. Turner Trucking Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by issuing a writ of certiorari in this case and that the issuance of the writ of certiorari was the only issue for which the dissent set out any reasoning, thus declining to address any remaining issues contained in Plaintiffs' brief.Plaintiffs brought a tort suit against the Young Men's Christian Association of Northwest North Carolina (the YMCA), admitting that their sexual abuse claims would be barred by the statutes of limitations in effect before enactment of the SAFE Child Act, 2109 N.C. Sess. Laws 1231, but asserting that the Act revived their claims. The YMCA moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the Act's revival of the statute of limitations violated the state Constitution. The trial court concluded that YMCA's claim was a facially challenge to the Act and transferred the issue to a panel of the court of appeals. After the YMCA appealed, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal as impermissibly interlocutory. The court of appeals issued a divided opinion, the majority vacating the transfer order and the dissent challenging the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Plaintiffs appealed based on the dissent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly issued the writ of certiorari; and (2) this Court declines to address the second issue raised in Plaintiffs' brief. View "Cryan v. Nat'l Council of YMCA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a deceased employee's prior timely filing of a workers' compensation claim for an injury was sufficient to establish the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction over a dependent's subsequent claim for death benefits allegedly resulting from that injury, thus reversing the court of appeals' ruling below.The Commission in this case denied Plaintiff's claim for death benefits and dismissed the claim with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff's untimely filing could not grant the Commission jurisdiction over the claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decedent's timely claim established the Commission's jurisdiction over this matter. View "McAuley v. N.C. A&T State University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss this action brought against Troy University, an accredited, four-year state university with several campuses in Alabama and an office in Fayetteville, North Carolina, alleging various tort claims arising out of his employment and termination, holding that Troy University explicitly waived its sovereign immunity.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Troy University and two individual defendants asserting, among other things, claims for wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy and negligent retention or supervision of an employee. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on sovereign immunity, citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019), which established that states are required to recognize sovereign immunity of other states as a matter of constitutional law. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) Troy University explicitly waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in North Carolina; and (2) therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not bar Plaintiff's suit against Defendants. View "Farmer v. Troy University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion rendered by the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment entered upon the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants in this medical malpractice case, holding that it is appropriate to overrule Byrd v. Marion General Hospital, 202 N.C. 337 (1932), as it is applied to the facts of this case.During the preparation of an "ablation procedure" on three-year-old Amaya Gullatte's heart and shortly after she was induced with the anesthetic sevorflurance Amaya went into cardiac arrest, resulting in the onset of permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy, and profound developmental delay. During trial, the court excluded evidence offered by Plaintiffs intended to show that Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Gus Vansoestbergen breached the professional duty of care governing his participation in the preparation and administration of the course of anesthesia. The ruling was dictated by the application of the principle set forth in Byrd establishing that nurses categorically do not owe a duty of care under the circumstances of this case. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's exclusion of Plaintiffs' expert testimony, holding that it is appropriate to overrule Byrd as it is applied to the facts of this case. View "Connette v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority" on Justia Law