Charlotte Injury Lawyers Blog

Former NFL Player’s Estate Files Wrongful Death Suit Against North Carolina Fiancée

January 26, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Former NFL player Chris Henry’s estate sued his former fiancée claiming she was negligent and as a result was responsible for the untimely death Henry. According to a recent report by News.Cincinatti.com, the estate of Chris Henry has alleged that Loleini Tonga is civilly liable for the wrongful death of Henry, along with her mother Ofu Tonga. However, lawyers for the estate claim that the purpose of the suit is to reach the insurance providers of both defendants. It is not the intention of the estate to take money from Henry’s children’s mother, but for the insurance companies to pay their fair share of the costs of liability.

The lawsuit claims that Tonga drove negligently after she and Henry got into an argument. Henry and Tonga got into a verbal altercation while at Tonga’s North Carolina home and afterwards Tonga got into a pickup truck and attempted to drive away. Henry was there recovering from an injury.

He apparently jumped into the bed of the pickup truck, but Tonga did not stop. When Henry proceeded to beat on the roof of the cabin, the suit alleges that Tonga continued to drive negligently which caused Henry to fall out of the bed of the pickup truck. Henry was “violently thrown from the bed of the pickup truck onto the paved road, resulting in multiple severe, painful and fatal injuries, including, but not limited to: a severe brain injury,” the suit notes.

Severely Injured North Carolina Woman Files Complaint

January 24, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

WCNC.com has reported that a woman who suffered a horrific trauma in a boating accident has just recently filed a lawsuit against the driver of the boat, the owner of the boat, and the manufacturer of the boat. According the suit, the victim, Deondra Scott, of Charlotte, had her right arm completely severed by the boat’s propeller when she jumped off the back of the boat into Lake Norman.

The accident took place in June during the annual Lake Bash, a yearly party where boaters come together to have fun, dance, listen to music and party. The boat that Scott was on was rented and driven by Dennis Allen. Allen rented the boat from David Orzolek. Prior to the day of the accident, Allen had no experience operating a boat. When the police responded to the scene of the accident in June, they determined that alcohol was not involved in the accident even though there was alcohol was present on the boat. The boat was, however, filled beyond capacity and it did not have enough life vests for the number of passengers on the boat.

Deondra Scott, along with some other passengers on the boat, jumped off the back of the boat and went into the water directly behind the boat. The complaint claims that all of the passengers who jumped into the boat were under the impression that the boat had been completely powered off. The plaintiff was swimming back toward the boat when other passengers of the boat realized that the engine was still running. One of the passengers tried to tell Allen to cut the engine, but Allen panicked and put the boat in reverse and hit the plaintiff with the boat’s propeller. Then, because Allen panicked again, he put the throttle in a forward gear and hit the plaintiff again with the propeller. As a result of being struck twice by the boat’s spinning propeller, the plaintiff suffered “1) a laceration to the right arm, which has since been amputated; 2) laceration to the breasts, which have since been amputated; 3) serious lacerations to both legs; 4) a punctured lung; 5) severed sternum.”

Scott’s attorneys filed the lawsuit in January. Scott is requesting damages for her medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, excessive scaring and loss of a limb. Both the driver and the owner of the boat have been named as defendants in the suit, in addition to the manufacturer. The suit alleges that the driver, Allen, and the owner, Orzolek, were negligent. It also charges the manufacturer of the boat, Chaparral, with a defect in design and breach of the duty to warn. The complaint alleges that the manufacturer of the boat promotes swimming directly behind the boat, but failed to warn of the dangers of swimming behind the boat while it is running, i.e., the spinning propeller that can dismember limbs.

Federal Government Invokes Sovereign Immunity in STD Lawsuit

January 20, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

According to a recent report in the Charlotte Observer, the federal government has responded to a lawsuit filed by the victims of a STD experiment by not responding. Federal researchers performed experimental research in the 1940s on Guatemalans to test the effects of penicillin. The experiment allowed prostitutes, prisoners, and patients in mental institutions to be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases and then be treated with the antibiotic penicillin to determine its effects. However, the subjects of the experiment did not consent to being exposed to these dangerous diseases.

The survivors have filed a federal lawsuit, but the Justice Department said that the researchers were federal employees and thus invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity, meaning that the government cannot be named as a defendant unless it consents to being sued. The government has the benefit of being protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act. That law prevents the United States from being sued for acts that took place in a foreign nation. The President, Secretary of State, and the Health and Human Services Secretary have all issued an apology on behalf of the actions of the government during that time and have all acknowledged that the experiments are “a deeply troubling chapter in our nation’s history.”

Even though the government acknowledges how terrible the researcher’s actions were, the government believes that a lawsuit is not the proper avenue for the victims to receive a remedy. The attorney for the plaintiffs is of course in opposition to the federal government’s position. “We will continue to vigorously fight for the rights of the Guatemalans wronged in this matter to obtain a remedy for the harms done by U.S. officials,” plaintiffs’ attorney Terrence Collingsworth said in response to the filing. “But we remain open to the United States deciding to do the right thing, consistent with long-established human rights law and basic morality.”

US Supreme Court Limits Inmates Ability to Sue for Personal Injuries

January 17, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

The Charlotte Observer recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a new decision regarding an inmate’s ability to file personal injury claims. On Tuesday, January 10, 2012, the Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that inmates held in federal custody in privately owned prisons can only file personal injury claims in state court. They cannot file claims in federal court. Writing for the majority, Justice Beyer said that the state law claims are enough to protect the inmate’s constitutional rights.

The suit was sparked by federal inmate Richard Pollard who filed a federal suit in California claiming that his treatment in a California jail violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pollard was injured while performing his job at the prison. He fractured his elbow and broke other small bones. He claimed that the prison guards exacerbated the injury by forcing him into a position that aggravated his injury further. He filed a complaint, but it was dismissed by a federal judge. After appealing the dismissal up to the Supreme Court, the Court held that he could have filed a negligence action in the state of California, but he did not.

The Court acknowledged that federal lawsuits may provide more of a remedy in these situations, but ultimately decided that because the inmate was housed in a privately-owned prison, state law was his only recourse. If Pollard had been an inmate at a federal or state-operated facility, he would have been able to sue in federal court. This new ruling severely limits inmates who may have legitimate federal claims against the prison from being able to pursue them in the proper venue.

North Carolina Sterilization Victims Get Compensation

January 12, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force has finally come up with a settlement figure, according to recent report by the New York Times. The panel has found that each living victim of North Carolina’s forced sterilization program should be given $50,000.00. North Carolina is not the first state to have a eugenics program, but it is the first state to place a monetary value on the compensation owed to the victims.

The term “eugenics” indicates an attempt to create a particular type of gene pool by selective breeding. According to a popular medical website, eugenics first began in the United States in Indiana where the government required state officials to sterilize, incarcerate, and at times, euthanize people who were thought to be genetically inferior. It turned into a massive campaign to rid the country of ethnic minorities, as the majority of the population was convinced that being a minority and being genetically inferior was one in the same.

North Carolina’s sterilization program was part of that campaign. Between 1933 and 1977, the North Carolina Eugenics Board sterilized nearly 8,000 people, mostly minorities and those with mental illnesses. In December 2011, the New York Times reported about a man named Charles Holt, who was forcibly sterilized as a teenager after he was caught fighting at school and openly masturbating. After spending years in a facility for individuals with mental disabilities, Holt was required to have a vasectomy before he could be released.

The North Carolina program allowed social workers to determine which people should be sterilized, and the social workers usually relied on IQ scores, which, to those running the program, served as an indication of mental capacity. Those with low mental capacity were deemed to not be fit enough to reproduce and were thus sterilized.

Some of the victims of the sterilization program are happy about the potential payout while others are convinced that it is not enough for what the government took from them. One victim, Ms. Rita Thompson Swords, said, “I think that number sounds fantastic.” Another victim, Ms. Elaine Riddick said, “They took away something from me that was so valuable that I can never get back.”

While there appears to be support from both parties in the North Carolina legislature for the payout, lawmakers may not be so easily convinced, especially since the payout could come total some $100 million. The panel believes that only between 1,500 and 2000 victims are still living. If Governor Perdue can convince legislators to approve this compensation plan, those victims will each receive $50,000.00.

North Carolina Lawyers Settle Blackwater Suit

January 10, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

The Washington Post reports that the security company formerly known as Blackwater, now known as Academi, has settled with the survivors and estates of victims of the 2007 shooting incident in Baghdad, Iraq. This was the last in a series of lawsuits brought by Iraqis for the deaths and injuries of other Iraqi citizens. The incident sparked a nationwide debate about the war in Iraq and the implications of armed American personnel in that country.

According to the suit, Blackwater guards were protecting several U.S. diplomats while they were in Iraq. The guards suddenly opened fire in a crowded square. The incident resulted in the death of 17 Iraqis, some of whom were women and children. Iraqi distaste for America and American involvement in their country only increased following the shooting. A North Carolina attorney, Jim Roberts, represented the families of three individuals killed in the shooting, one of them, a nine-year-old child.

The suit charged Blackwater and its contractors with wrongful death and negligence in the death of three individuals. Initially, Blackwater’s lawyers vigorously denied that their client was liable for the death of these people. They argued that because the Blackwater guards were protecting United States diplomats, they were agents of the federal government. Therefore, if anyone was liable it would be the federal government. They also argued that Blackwater could not be sued in the United States by foreign citizens for something that happened abroad.

Academi also settled a suit filed back in 2005 by the families of several Blackwater employees who were killed in an ambush back in 2004. That suit also alleged that Blackwater was liable for the wrongful death of the contractors.

It’s unclear what sparked the change in strategy at the company, why they decided to settle after so long a fight, but it is likely that the new company wants to move on without the stigma of these lawsuits hanging over its head.

Charlotte EMS Leaves Biohazard After Car Accident

January 5, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

According to a recent report by WBTV, a controversy has erupted over who is responsible for cleaning up hazardous waste left after an accident involving injuries.

After the injured had been treated at the scene and sent off to receive additional medical care, what was left behind at the scene was a slew of bloody gauze and soiled latex gloves used by EMS to stabilize and treat the injured passengers. The law currently does not provide any guidance about who is supposed to clean up the scene of an accident. Mark Fagala, a biohazard specialist, said, “EMS takes ’em in, Highway Patrol clears, and it’s just left for the property owner to clean up.”

The homeowner with bloody gauze strewn around his yard was not satisfied with being responsible for having to clean up a mess for which he was not responsible. He called the City of Charlotte and complained. Someone was immediately sent out to properly dispose of the hazardous waste. There are guidelines for proper disposal of biological waste and the fact that there are not clear provisions regarding the clean-up after an accident means that someone has dropped the ball.

Only two states in the country have specific rules for disposal of biological waste, Florida and California. North Carolina has no such laws and Fagala thinks that it is time for that to change. The risk of infection and injury is high in this situation. The owners of the property where an accident has occurred has no way of knowing if any of the injured people carried life threatening diseases and whether they are putting their own health at risk if they attempt to dispose of the material.

The best and most efficient thing to do is to lobby lawmakers to draft a bill addressing this issue. There are several possibilities. EMS could be required to come back and clean the scene. EMS could be required to notify an accident and crime scene clean-up agency prior to leaving the scene. The police department could also be required to do the same. Whatever the avenue taken by lawmakers, it will be better than leaving an innocent property owner with the responsibility of clearing their property of hazardous material.

Paralyzed North Carolina Woman Hopes to Walk

January 3, 2012 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

According to an article by the Charlotte Observer, on May 23, 2010, Rachelle Chapman walked to her bachelorette pool party and left paralyzed from the chest down. It was a normal day for her, but it ended with a life-changing event. Chapman and her friends were horsing around when one of her friends pushed her into the pool. She landed in an awkward position in the shallow end and injured her vertebra. Chapman immediately felt nothing from her chest down and had no feeling on the outside of her arms. Chapman and her fiancé were supposed to be married just weeks after the accident, but for obvious reasons, the wedding was postponed for more than a year.

Chapman has never revealed the name of the friend who pushed her into the pool. The woman was also a bridesmaid at Chapman’s wedding and she does not hold her friend responsible for her injuries. It was an unfortunate accident that led to tragic consequences.

As part of her recovery, Chapman trained at Project Walk, a facility that treats spinal cord injuries in California. During her stay there, she was able to gain a tremendous amount of strength. When she first got to Project Walk, she was weak and suffering from bone loss. At the end of her treatment she had increased her strength and was able to sit upright without passing out from low blood pressure.

Chapman was only at Project Walk for three weeks, but she hopes to go back again this year. She is now working out at home to continue her progress. Her fiancée and father-in-law built her a table to work out with while she is at home. She uses a home gym and does weight-bearing exercises to continue to build her strength. She has confidence that she will eventually be able to walk again and her nurses at Project Walk feel just as confident. Kimberly Davis, one Chapman’s instructors at Project Walk, says that it is possible that Chapman will be able to walk again. Davis concedes that this kind of spinal injury is unpredictable, but that unpredictability works in Chapman’s favor.

Sneakers Cause Chaos at North Carolina Mall

December 29, 2011 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

The scene was akin to Black Friday chaos when Michael Jordan re-released his Air Jordan XI Concord sneakers. Shoppers lined up in droves to purchase the shoes and the police were called to several locations to keep the crowd in check. The Charlotte Observer reported that police were called to three malls in North Carolina to quell the riotous masses.

People began arriving at the stores early in the morning on Friday, December 23. The stores were allowed to sell the shoes starting at 5:00 AM, but several customers were lining up hours ahead of time. “There were people crying, screaming. People were running around, pushing. … Unbelievable. A lot of cursing,” said Numar Betris who was fortunate enough to purchase a pair at SouthPark Mall.

At Carolina Place Mall, shoppers reported that the crowd began getting extremely aggressive. There were three stores in the mall that were selling the shoes and the eager shoppers went charging through the store like bulls when the doors were finally opened. At least one person lost her shoe in the mêlée. The malls weren’t the only places slammed with crowds. Police were called to several shoe stores around North Carolina where shoppers reported being pushed and shoved attempting to buy the new Jordans.

If anyone suffered injuries from the chaos in the lines, those injuries could be the foundation for a personal injury lawsuit. One potential problem is that the plaintiff filing the suit may have a difficult time proving causation. The theory of liability would be negligence, but the plaintiff would have a hard time pinpointing which one of the hundreds of shoppers caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

CATS Bus and Truck Collide, Injuring Twelve

December 27, 2011 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police and emergency crews were called to the scene of a troubling bus accident on North Tryon Street in Charlotte on Thursday morning. A CATS bus and a pickup truck collided at an intersection. The end result was that 12 people suffered injuries. At the time of the crash, the bus was carrying twenty passengers. Twelve of those passengers were injured. One passenger had life-threatening injuries, while the others only suffered minor issues. Seven passengers were taken to Carolinas Medical Center and the other five were taken to Presbyterian Hospital. The driver of the truck escaped injury entirely.

The CATS bus was coming up a hill when the pickup truck pulled out in front of the bus. The driver of the truck was trying to make a left turn onto Tryon Street, but collided with the bus. Police have made the determination that the driver of the pickup truck is at fault because he pulled out in front of the bus. WSOC TV spoke with the pickup driver’s supervisor at Kip Construction where he worked. His supervisor admitted that the turn onto North Tryon can be difficult to navigate and drivers should be cautious when making that turn. “I’ve been hit coming out of there,” said Bryan Rosenhauer with Kip Corporation, another of the driver’s colleagues. “I’ve been hit turning in there. It’s just a bad spot coming over the crest of a hill. People move through here pretty good.”

This type of accident should prompt drivers to be more careful when driving. Had the pickup truck driver waited for a few more seconds before making that turn, he could have avoided the damage to his car, the damage to the CATS bus, and the 12 injuries. He is now potentially responsible for all the damage and the injuries that resulted from his failure to yield the right of way to the CATS bus.

The police’s determination that the driver of the pickup truck was at fault will go a long way in proving in court by a preponderance of the evidence that the driver is civilly liable for the damage. However, if the driver can demonstrate that the CATS bus driver was driving too fast or if there was something that the bus driver could have done to avoid the accident, then CATS may potentially be barred from recovery due to North Carolina’s pure contributory negligence rule. Pure contributory negligence bars the plaintiff from recovering anything if the plaintiff was in any way at fault.

There are, however, some exceptions to this harsh rule, one of them being something called “The Last Clear Chance” rule. This doctrine provides that if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but did not, then the plaintiff may make a full recovery regardless of the amount of the plaintiff’s fault.