• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

North Carolina Personal Injury & Workers Compensation Attorneys

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • linkedin

Call Us 919-240-4054

Main navigation

  • Camp Lejeune
  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Burns and Explosions
      • Back Injury
      • Brain Injury
      • Chemical Exposure
      • Construction Accidents
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19
      • Occupational Disease
      • Union Members
      • Workplace Violence
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury
      • College Campus Injuries
      • Car Accidents
      • Catastrophic Injuries
      • Premises Liability
      • Product Liability
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Traumatic Brain Injury
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Trucking Accidents
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crash
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann E. Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Helen S. Baddour
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Speaking Engagements
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

October 7, 2009 By nicole

This week’s personal injury case from the NC Court of Appeals

The court issued an unpublished opinion about a pedestrian-vehicle auto accident in Hill v. Thompson this week. In the case, the 15-year-old plaintiff crossed a highway near her home, not at a crosswalk, and was struck by defendants’ vehicle. Defendants argued that plaintiff could not recover at all because she was contributorily negligent (partially at fault) for crossing the street without paying attention. The court agreed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, under the rule that “If the road is straight, visibility unobstructed, the weather clear. . . a plaintiff’s failure to see and avoid defendant’s vehicle will consistently be deemed contributory negligence as a matter of law.”

The court disagreed, however, that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because of the last clear chance doctrine. Under the doctrine, even if the plainitff’s negligence puts her in a dangerous position, the defendant can still be liable if he has a clear chance to and unreasonably fails to avoid colliding with the plaintiff. Here, the driver saw the plaintiff near the road as he started down the hill, but didn’t start applying his brakes until the plaintiff was in the highway. The court concluded that a jury should therefore decide if the last clear chance doctrine applied.

Filed Under: Car Accident, Personal Injury Tagged With: Car Accident, Case Commentary, Contributory Negligence, Last Clear Chance, NC Court of Appeals

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees
  • Union Members

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Back Injury
  • Brain Injury
  • Burns and explosions
  • Chemical Exposure
  • COVID-19 and Healthcare Workers
  • Occupational Diseases
  • Workplace Violence

Free Legal Resources

  • Workers’ Compensation 101
  • 8 Questions to Answer Before You Are Ever in a Wreck
  • Essentials for Workers’ Comp Success
  • Help for Families of North Carolina Burn Victims

Locations

Durham Office

300 Blackwell St S#101, Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd., Ste 6 Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Read Our Google Reviews

Get more stuff

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously.

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC Law Firm SEO by EverSpark Interactive