North Carolina Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Justice is based on proof. If you have been involved in a car accident in North Carolina, having records of your medical treatment and the costs is critical.

In addition to proper medical records, having an experienced North Carolina injury attorney can be the difference between winning and losing your case.

Armisted v. State Farm is a case involving six plaintiffs (plaintiffs) who suffered from serious injuries which were the result of their respective automobile accidents. Plaintiffs suffered catastrophic traumatic brain injuries and sought payment from their no-fault insurance company for the cost of having a home attendant care service. Initially, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) paid the plaintiff benefits at the rate the plaintiffs requested. There was a settlement agreement where State Farm agreed to pay each plaintiff the original amount for a definite period of time. However, after the time stipulated in the settlement agreement, and after conducting market survey research on cost of home attendant care service, State Farm reduced the benefit rates to the rates consistent with the market survey.

Plaintiff's sued State Farm to make it pay benefits consistent with the original rate of benefits. State Farm argued that because plaintiffs refused to submit documentation proving the nature and extent of their expenditures, State Farm was not justified in paying the higher benefits. The reason why it was so critical for State Farm to have this information was that it needed to establish the exact type of injuries, the home care that was necessary, and how much that care would cost.

The cost of benefits paid by insurance companies to injured policyholders must be reasonable and consistent with the nature and extent of the care provided. State Farm acknowledges that the amount it was paying in benefits decreased substantially but it would be willing to pay additional hourly benefits if it received documentation demonstrating that this increase in benefit costs was justifiable.

Plaintiff's countered, that because of the advice of counsel they were not to provide these documents to State Farm.

The jury found on behalf of State Farm because the plaintiffs failed to prove that the expenses of around the clock care were necessary and allowable.

The following law was used to analyze the facts of the case. The court stresses that the plaintiff has the burden of proving their entitlement to no-fault benefits. The court looks to the definition of "allowable expenses" and the three requirements in order to find healthcare allowable. Plaintiff must prove that the charge for the service was reasonable, the service and expenses were reasonably necessary, and that the expense was actually incurred. Payable insurance benefits in accidental bodily injury cases accrue when the treatment is received not when the injury occurred.

State Farm stressed that in our current times, payment for services is contingent on a documentation of the services rendered. The jury is responsible for making the decision of whether the plaintiff's expenses were allowable and covered by no-fault statutes. Because there was no evidence provided by the plaintiffs, the jury relied on this failure of documentation.

Although the plaintiff's alleged that State Farm was misstating the law surrounding documentation, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of proof and a judgment for State Farm was warranted.

Continue reading "North Carolina Personal Injury and Proof of "Allowable Expenses" and No-Fault Benefits" »

How much evidence is enough to prove your North Carolina personal injury claims?

Our experienced Carolina personal injury attorneys can give you the guidance you need to prove your case and get the award you deserve.

Martin ("plaintiff") was at St. Dominic Memorial Hospital ("SDH" or "Defendant") for a group therapy session when she slipped and fell on the floor. At the time that she fell, the floor was being waxed. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries to both of her knees and sued SDH under the legal cause of action for negligence as a result of the slip and fall accident.

The issue the court confronted in Martin v. St. Dominic Memorial Hospital was whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support her argument that SDH was negligent. In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the four elements of negligence.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a specific duty of care. The second component of negligence the plaintiff must prove is that the defendant breached this specific duty of care. This breach of duty can include any affirmative actions by the defendant and can even include omissions for which the defendant was responsible. The third critical element of negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach of duty was directly and proximately the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. To prove this the plaintiff must provide evidence of the direct causal link between defendant's actions or failure to act and the plaintiff's damages. The last element involved in a case for negligence is that the plaintiff must provide the court with evidence of the actual damages.

The court held that where a plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence and prove the elements of negligence it is proper to grand a directed verdict for the defendant.

The court looked to several factors in their analysis of the case at hand. It can be found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge that the floor was being waxed because the plaintiff was passing the custodian who was waxing the floor when she fell. Then the defendant provided evidence that plaintiff and other members of the group were warned to avoid the hallway because it was being waxed. Additionally, the court notes that SDH had placed warning signs in the area that was being waxed.

On the other hand, plaintiff testified alleging that there were no warning signs on display and that the group was never warned that the floor was being waxed. Plaintiff argued that because of her fall at SDH, she suffered serious swelling and injury to her knees. But the court notes that the plaintiff had previously suffered from arthritis in both of her knees.

The only way to decipher the element of causation is to have the testimony of a medical expert. However, the court found the testimony of the expert was insufficient to prove the causal link. Evidence was presented to the court showing that plaintiff had a meniscus tear in her knee which could have been caused by an injury or because of wear and tear.

The court explained that the plaintiff had to provide evidence that her injuries were the result of her fall at SDH or that her fall at SDH aggravated a preexisting condition. Basically, the court said that a reasonable jury would be unable to decipher whether plaintiff's injury was the cause of her arthritis or the fall at SDH. Because the doctor was not able to provide his opinion with sufficient certainty, the causal link between defendant's actions and the injury plaintiff suffered is too weak.

This case illustrates how critical it is to have the right information presented in support of your claim.

Continue reading "Evidence of Causation is Critical in North Carolina Personal Injury Cases, Says the Court in Martin v. St. Dominic Memorial Hospital" »

When you are injured because of the fault of another person, proving this fault can seem intimidating. There are many rules governing the testimony of witnesses, how the testimony can be elicited, and the required thresh-holds of evidence.

Our Carolina injury attorneys have the experience to help you prove the elements of your case. Getting the right witnesses and testimony is critical to getting the award you deserve in your North and South Carolina personal injury case.

Newell Rubbermaid v. Raymond Corp. is a very multifaceted case. Although it is not a straight personal injury case, it is presented because it explains the importance of expert witnesses' testimony in injury cases. Hashman (Victim) worked for Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. (Newell or Employer). As part of her job, she was required to drive a forklift that was manufactured by Raymond (Manufacturer). This forklift was open in that there was no guard door on the rear of the machine to protect operators. The manufacturer produced guard doors for separate purchase, but the employer never purchased one because there was no industry requirement for one. While operating the forklift, victim lost her balance causing her to sustain serious injuries to her foot resulting in amputation.

The employer ultimately sued the forklift manufacturer claiming that there was a defect in the design of the machine. In order to support its claims, Newell provided the testimony of a forensic engineer named Railsback (Expert). The question for the court was whether the expert met the requirements to be an expert witness, and whether his contentions had sufficient support.

In order for an expert to be used in a case, the expert must have sufficient experience with the facts of the case at hand. For instance, the court found that because the expert had never driven the manufacturers forklift, he did not have sufficient training or experience with forklifts to qualify him as an expert witness.

Additionally, the court looks to an experts ability to test and provide evidence regarding the facts at issue. For example, in a car accident case a medical expert can testify that the probability that the victim obtained their injury from another source is low. They can make this contention by providing sufficient medical test reports, accepted medical journals and the victim's medical history. This is how the inference in the expert's testimony can be tested.

Because Railsback was not able to provide the court with verifiable information for which he drew his conclusions, he was not classified as an expert for the case. Therefore, all of the testimony he provided to the court in this case was considered irrelevant and excluded from the court proceedings.

Where a party does not provide the sufficient support of their contentions, a court is likely to decide in favor of the other party in what is referred to as summary judgment. Summary judgment is possible in all types of cases and it is used where there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case. In making this determination, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the summary judgment.

The issue in this case became, "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251(1986). This court found that because the expert testimony was considered irrelevant, the evidence of the case was considered to be one-sided in favor of the manufacturer. Because the employer did not provide evidence to create a question for a jury, the manufacturer had to prevail in the case as a matter of law.

The court further explains that it would be an abuse of court discretion to use a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence as the basis of their decision. Therefore, in order to rely on the testimony of an expert the expert must be found to have specialized knowledge that will assist the court in understanding the facts at issue. Although the court explains that there is no test or checklist for expert qualifications but there is significant case law which provides precedent that the court must follow.

Thus in this case, because the expert had not tested his potential design alternatives, he was not classified as an expert; his testimony was stricken from the record, and the party who offered him as a witness lost the case.

Continue reading "The Court Discusses the Standards for Carolina Personal Injury Expert Testimony in Newell Rubbermaid v. Raymond Corp. " »

Our North Carolina Personal Injury Lawyers have been talking about the dangers that accompany the spring and summer travel season.

And guess what? They're here! We've recently been discussing the dangers associated with spring break travel as well as the dangers associated with traveling via 15-passenger van. Now, we would like to discuss travel with busing companies.

Luckily, there's a new app that is here to help you to make the safest decision possible. Safety should be a top priority when choosing a busing company to use. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently released the SaferBus app for iPhones and iPads. Don't have an iPhone or iPad? Don't worry! You can also access the app through the FMCSA's "Look Before You Book" webpage. This information will help you to make the safety travel plans possible.

The new SaferBus app is allowing vacationers and travelers to get all of the inside information regarding busing companies and safety ratings. The app provides the last 2 years of safety information for roughly 6,000 busing companies across the U.S. This way, travelers will be able to look through a free review before booking a trip with virtually any busing company nationwide.

Our Greensboro personal injury attorneys understand that buses are a convenient and cost-friendly way to get to and from your vacation destination. Above all else, safety should be the top concern of all travelers. With the new SaferBus device, safety info is at your fingertips. With the touch of a button, you can review the safety ratings and information for thousands of busing companies.

"This new app gives Americans the information they need to make smart safety decisions when they book their next bus trip," said U.S. DOT Secretary, Ray LaHood.

If you're an iPhone or an iPad user, you can get the app by visiting the Apple iTunes App Store. And it's free!

This app and this website offers an inside look into roughly 6,000 interstate commercial passenger carriers that operate throughout the U.S. Privately operated motorcoach, tour buses and school buses are also included in this system.

Experts predict that this kind of information is going to be useful to a lot of travelers nationwide, considering that there were more than 700 million motorcoach passenger trips taken in the country in 2009. It's obvious that buses are a prime mode of travel. Clearly buses are a popular way to get around, especially on vacations.

Anne S. Ferro with the FMCSA says that all travelers should be concerned with a busing company's safety rating. If there's one thing to base your judgment on, it should be this -- safety. She says that with this program, riders and busing companies are back to looking at safety above all else.

Continue reading "SaferBus App Fighting Bus Accidents in Greensboro and Elsewhere" »

It is sometimes difficult to determine what relief you are entitled to when you have been injured. Having an experienced North Carolina injury attorney who can thoroughly inform you of your rights is critical in obtaining the award you deserve in your North Carolina personal injury case.

This case illustrates the methods employed by the judicial system in this country to determine the applicability of statute to facts of individual cases. Chatman v. Strafford County came before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire because of the plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's decision in favor of Strafford County. The question here involves the interpretation of a state statute governing bodily injury actions against government units.

Statutes are written by the legislatures, either federal or state. Because the writers cannot foresee every possible case that will arise on the prominent issue in the statute, there are times where there may seem to be ambiguity regarding the main precepts of the statute. The Court in Chatman discussed this as they explained how they intended to interpret the statute at hand in the case.

The Court explains that to interpret a statute, the court observes the plain meaning of the words within the statute. Additionally, the intent of the legislature in passing the statute is taken into account as the court determines what types of protection were intended to be available through the statute, and to whom this protection was intended. Courts look to controlling case law where the statute has been interpreted in the past, to make sure that their interpretation is consistent with the legal precedent.

Chatman v. Strafford County is a case where the Plaintiff was involved in a work program being run by the Department of Corrections under the supervision of Paul Giampa. Upon instruction from Giampa, plaintiff was instructed to load tables and chairs onto a trailer that was not yet hitched to another vehicle. Giampa directed the Plaintiff in conjunction with others there, to lift the trailer and hitch it to the pickup truck. Because of the uneven ground and a failure in the trailer jack, the trailer fell onto Plaintiff's left leg and ankle. Upon the trailer falling on the Plaintiff, she suffered irreparable injuries. Plaintiff sued Giampa for negligence and his employer Strafford County under the claim of respondeat superior.

Respondeat superior is often referred to as vicarious liability. This is an agency principal where the employer is held liable for the negligence of an employee who was acting within the scope of employment.

Defendant's argued that the statute which allowed the lawsuit was not applicable because the plaintiff's claims did not arise out of "the County's ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle." Plaintiff countered this argument by claiming that her injuries arose out of the County's operation of the truck which was a motor vehicle. Further, the plaintiff argued that if the statute did not apply to the facts of her case then the statute should be found unconstitutional.

The main issue at hand is whether the vehicle could be considered as being "operated" under the applicable state statute. As observed in prior cases surrounding this statue, the court has found that operating a motor vehicle includes all of the acts performed in the movement of a motor vehicle from one place to another. Therefore, the plaintiff was left to explain the causal connection between the "operation" of the motor vehicle and the injuries she sustained.

This Court held that it is insufficient to only consider whether the trailer was hitched to a moving vehicle but that the entire range of activities for which the plaintiff was engaged must be considered in determining the application of the statute. Plaintiff was injured while the pickup truck was being operated because operations includes loading the trailer and the pickup were operated as a unit. The attempt to hitch the trailer to the truck is considered as enough evidence of the "operation" element. Therefore, this Court reversed the prior decision on behalf of Stafford County and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This decision explains how this Court adopted an opposite conclusion from that which the California courts reached. Because every state has different judges, statutes, and cases; the decisions are different.

Continue reading "North Carolina Personal Injury:Negligence Decisions Differ by State, Court" »

Proposed statewide cuts to Medicaid have those who have suffered permanent disability from spinal cord injuries in North Carolina fearing a substandard level of care.

Our Asheville spinal cord injury attorneys are anxiously awaiting the decision by legislators, which could have a substantial impact in the long-term care of some clients.

The fact that our governmental economic stability both at the state and federal level is tenuous, this is all the more reason why someone who has suffered a spinal cord injury must immediately contact an experienced attorney. Often, people who are coping with such a devastating injury are going to require long-term care or at least rehabilitation that is likely to be costly and all-consuming. If you can't count on the government to help subsidize some of that cost, it is in your best interest to have an attorney who will fight to earn you the best compensation available.

According to the Greenville News, the proposed cuts would directly impact state and county disability centers. For example, an executive at the Greenville County Disabilities and Special Needs board said the changes would mean slashing staff by almost 60 percent. That would mean the case workers who remain - those who provide services to both youth and adults who suffer from a myriad of disabilities, including spinal cord injuries - would have more than double the workload.

It's a case manager's job to assess the person's need and work out a care plan. This helps make sure that the person is able to get the appropriate care.

Legislators, however, are trying to reduce fraud and abuse of the system. The rate that people must pay for services varies a great deal. This has led to people being reimbursed for services they weren't eligible for or of certain agencies receiving perhaps more than they should have been.

The government says the cost for case management is highly inflated, and that has meant taxpayers have to foot the bill.

However, the agencies that provide services dispute this, and say that if the government intends to slash their funding, it's going to mean serious consequences for those at the ground level.

A spokeswoman with the state's Department of Disabilities and Special Needs said that the average salary of a case management worker is about $32,000 annually, and that the cost to provide that service per individual is about $1,500. The accountability is there, the spokeswoman says, because all of the income rates and service fees are reported back to the government each year. What's more, case managers work hands-on with people who have complex needs.

"These are difficult cases," she said. "...It takes a lot of time. One size doesn't fit all."

And with these changes, a number of private providers who contract with the government say they either won't be able to continue doing what they do, or they'll have to cut way back on the services provided. Families and patients worry this could mean they'll hardly ever see their caseworker.

Almost nobody anticipates a spinal cord injury. It's an unexpected event, and not one that you might spend your whole life saving for. The government assistance provided does help. The fact that it is now on the chopping block is all the more reason to make sure you have an attorney who will fight to ensure you have been properly compensated by the responsible party that may have caused your injury in the first place. Even if federal and state assistance isn't cut now, there is nothing to say it couldn't happen in the next several years.

Continue reading "North Carolina Spinal Cord Injury Patients Concerned About Funding Cuts" »

This case is very important not only to those who live in rural and farming communities, but people in all different kinds of communities. Rippy v. Shepard is a case that defines motor vehicles and discusses liability distribution in personal injury claims.

Knowing North Carolina personal injury law is not only the responsibility of a North Carolina injury attorney, it is also the responsibility of all vehicle owners. Knowing how your state imposes liability for negligence can help you act more cautiously in order to prevent these common North Carolina injury claims.

Rippy v. Shepard is a case that legally defines the commonly used term of motor vehicle. The court does this because the plaintiff in this case sued the defendant for injuries he sustained as a result of the defendant lending his farm tractor to another person who drove it negligently. We see this often with car accidents, but so many people do not know how their court imposes liability for these damages.

Vicarious liability is a doctrine created under the agency principles where there is liability or responsibility for actions of a subordinate imputed on the superior. This is commonly seen in cases where the employer is held liable for the acts of an employee while the acts were done within the scope of the employee's employment. This is a common law principal that has been adjusted and codified by states differently.

In this Florida case, the doctrine applying this form of liability in reference to motor vehicles is called the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. This doctrine applies to motor vehicles and automobiles that have the ability to cause serious injury.

The question then rested with the court as to whether a farm tractor was considered a motor vehicle. The first point of analysis was to determine whether the Florida courts and the Florida Legislature have considered farm tractors to be motor vehicles. The court cited Florida Statute § 316.003(12) where farm tractor is defined as "any motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm implement for drawing plows, mowing machines and other implements of husbandry." Additionally, Florida Statute § 322.01(19) also refers to farm tractors as a motor vehicle.

The court acknowledges that motor vehicles are not peculiarly dangerous in their ordinary use. But they do cause damage and injury when they are operated without the proper amount of care. The court clarifies that this doctrine is not limited to motor vehicles that are being operated on public streets, but it also applies to motor vehicles being used on private property.

This court goes on to cite significant case law where the Florida courts have extended this doctrine to include, "golf carts, trucks, buses, airplanes, tow-motors and other motorized vehicles."

The premise of this dangerous instrumentality doctrine is that it seeks to put a financial responsibility on owners of vehicles who entrust these vehicles to others who then negligently operate them. See Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363, 1365 (Fla. 1990).

Although this common law doctrine may be unique to Florida, other states have similar legal standards of imposing vicarious liability on owners where there instrumentalities are negligently operated by another person with the permission of the owner.

Continue reading "Rippy v. Shepard Clears Up Confusion Over What Classifies as a Motor Vehicle" »

There seems to be no end in sight. North Carolina keeps getting hammered with dangerous winter weather. The weather has been a primary factor in a number of snow, ice and rain-related car accidents in Western North Carolina and elsewhere. According to NEWS2, a tractor-trailer tipped over into an embankment on Interstate 40 right by the Brevard Road exit. A lane of that roadway had to be closed so that emergency responders could get the big rig out. This accident happened when Asheville was hit by that punch of mid-February snow.

Our recent weather conditions have been sitting in the 20s and 30s with some wicked wind gusts. Although The Weather Channel reports that it's expected to warm up in the next few days, rain is still prevalent. With slick roadways, risks for car accidents in Asheville are still expected to be high.

Weather can be pretty tricky during this time of year. One day it starts to warm up. The next day we are slammed with icy temperatures and the next days it's pouring rain. Our Asheville car accident attorneys ask that you prepare yourself for any and all types of weather that Mother Nature decides to throw at us. There are a few safe driving tips that can be applied to all driving scenarios. For others, we need to properly adjust our driving habits to accommodate the current traffic and the weather conditions.

General Driving Tips from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT):

-Stay alert at the wheel.

-Always buckle up.

-Never drive while under the influence of alcohol.

-Make sure children are always fastened in approved child seats.

-Always follow the posted speed limit.

-Be patient. Don't rush.

-Never tailgate other vehicles.

-Ignore in-car distractions.

-Keep a lookout for debris in the road.

-Leave early to avoid rushing.

-Consider planning trips that avoid busy and congested roadways.

-Check NCDOT's Traveler Information Management System (TIMS) or call 511 to get real-time travel info.

Winter Weather Driving Tips from NCDOT:

-Make sure that all of your windows and your mirrors are clear.

-Slow it down when weather conditions are shoddy.

-Allow a safe following distance between you and other vehicles.

-Be careful around shaded roadways and bridges because ice accumulates first in these areas.

-If you start sliding on an icy roadway, ease up on the gas and turn your steering wheel in the direction that your car is sliding. Don't brake because you will lose control even more.

-Always carry a cell phone with you for emergencies.

-Always make a complete stop when coming to intersections with no working traffic lights. Treat these areas like four-way stops.

NCDOT is there by your side trying to make the state's roadways safer for everyone. The Department usually budgets about $30 million each year for winter weather road treatments. More funds, if needed, will be drawn from emergency reserves.

Continue reading "Fickle Weather Conditions Increasing Risks for Car Accidents in Asheville and Elsewhere" »

A paralyzed bride made her way down the aisle to marry her best friend last August after a accident with one of her bridesmaids left her with no feeling in the lower half of her body. With her new husband, the recently injured woman has made it a goal of hers to start moving her body again, go back to school and to eventually start a family, according to New York Daily News.

The paralyzing North Carolina accident happened just a few days before the bride's wedding when one of her bridesmaids accidentally pushed her into a pool. From the accident, she suffered from broken vertebrae that hindered her ability to feel or move her legs.

Our Asheville injury attorneys understand that victims of spinal cord injuries and paralysis face a lifetime of obstacles and difficulties. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), spinal cord injuries (SCI) currently affect about 200,000 people in the country. Every year, there are up to 20,000 new SCI patients. If you or a family member is dealing with paralysis or another SCI, contact an attorney immediately. Victims should never hand over statements to insurance companies and should never accept any compensation payments before talking with an experienced attorney. Legal representation can help you to fight for what you deserve after such a devastating injury.

The North Carolina bride hasn't made her first-walking steps yet, but she's spent time at a rehabilitation center in California, which has helped make her even stronger. She is now able to stand with the assistance of a special hydraulic frame. She admits being very weak before attending this program.

"She didn't leave here walking, but she increased her strength tremendously," said Kimberly Davis, an instructor at the California rehabilitation center.

She plans on going back to the rehabilitation center, but practices her exercises at home until then in hopes of one day being able to walk again.

Paralyzing accidents and SCI's are extremely costly! The average medical costs for one of these injuries is roughly $30,000 a year. A lifetime of living with an SCI can cost anywhere from half a million to more than $3 million. This is why it's important to seek legal representation in the event of an accident. You want to make sure that you're provided with the proper compensation to make it though the costly times.

Spinal Cord Injury Facts:

-More than 50 percent of SCI victims are considered paraplegic. The rest are considered quadriplegic.

-More than 80 percent of these victims are male.

-Nearly 60 percent of these injuries are experienced by individuals ages 16- through 30-years-old.

-The average age of an SCI victim is 31-years-old.

Spinal Cord Injuries are Commonly Caused By:

-Traffic accidents.

-Violence.

-Falls.

-Sports-related accidents.

Continue reading "Spinal Cord Injury in North Carolina Doesn't Keep Bride from Wedding" »

Families may enjoy the smell of fresh pine around the holidays as they decorate and light up their Christmas tree. But there are some risks involved with having a real tree in your home. Christmas trees present a risk of fire or electrical hazards which can lead to smoke inhalation or severe burn injuries in Asheville or elsewhere.

Winston-Salem personal injury lawyers know that once a real tree becomes dry it can be highly flammable so it is important to water your tree frequently throughout the holiday season.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently released a video to show just how dangerous real trees can be and how quickly they can cause severe damage to a home when flames ignite.

The NFPA reports from 2005-2009, there were an average of 240 homes fires that started from Christmas trees in the U.S. each year which required help from fire departments to put out the flames. During this period, 13 people were killed, 27 were seriously injured and $16.7 million in property damage occurred each year on average. It is reported that one out of every 18 Christmas tree-related fires resulted in death. In 20 percent of incidents a heat source too close to the tree started the fire.

The NFPA offers these Christmas tree safety tips while picking out a tree, placing the tree in your home and lighting the tree after it is decorated:

-Select a tree that has green needles. It is never a good sign if the needles fall when you touch the tree so always choose a fresh tree.

-Cut away 1 to 2 inches from the base of the tree before you put it in the tree stand.

-Check your home for the closest heat source like candles, heat vents, fireplaces, lights or radiators. Make sure your tree is positioned at least three feet away from any of these sources.

-Never stand a tree where it can block an exit in case of a fire or other emergency.

-Add water to the tree stand daily.

-Read labels on lights to make sure they are for indoor use and make sure they have been independently tested by a laboratory.

-No more than three strands of mini string sets should be connected. Screw-in bulbs should have a maximum of 50 bulbs.

-Always read the manufacturer's instructions before lighting the tree.

-As nice as a lit candle may look on a Christmas tree, candles should never be used as decorations.

-Never leave a tree lit overnight or when you aren't at home.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission also reports that decorating your home for the holidays presents hazards for fall accidents or severe cuts in addition to the risks related to tree fires. Family members are at risk of falling off the ladder while hanging decorations or being cut when a bulb or ornament breaks. Last year, the CPSC estimates there were 13,000 injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms from holiday decorating in November and December. This was 1,000 more medically treated injuries than each of the two previous years.

For more information about holiday decorating safety, visit CPSC online for helpful safety tips that can keep you or your family injury-free throughout the holiday season.

Continue reading "Holiday Decorating Puts Families at Risk of Severe Injury in Asheville, Elsewhere" »

General Motors is offering to buy back your Chevrolet Volt. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Volts are under a thorough investigation after the vehicles were discovered to pose a fire hazard after side-collision safety testing. A car accident in Asheville and elsewhere involving a Chevy Volt could potentially lead to safety issues in the future.

In recent crash studies, the NHTSA determined that, during a side collision, the vehicle's coolant line could rupture and the vehicle's lithium-ion battery could catch fire. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are working alongside the NHTSA to collect information regarding the potential for fire in electric vehicles.

Our Asheville car accident lawyers understand how important it is to research vehicles for purchase and to stay up-to-date with the latest vehicle recalls. Drivers are urged to check out the Safecar.gov website frequently to ensure that their vehicles aren't putting them at risk for an accident. Long after a vehicle is manufactured, officials can determine there are problems that could cause injury to motorists. Please review this information frequently to help reduce your risks of an accident.

The Chevy Volt has not been recalled yet, but will be if the NHTSA determines that there's an unreasonable risk to safety. If a recall is issued, officials from General Motors will take the appropriate measures to notify drivers.

While these investigations are taking place, GM Chief Executive Dan Akerson says that the company is willing to buy back any Volt from concerned consumers. The automaker is also offering to loan out a temporary vehicle to owners until the safety concerns are resolved as well.

"While the investigation is going on, we will do whatever it takes to allay concerns and keep our customers happy and if that includes repurchase, we will work individually with any customer," says GM spokesman Greg Martin.

Currently, there have been nearly 10,000 Chevy Volts sold in the U.S. Only about 30 of these vehicle owners have asked the company for a loaner vehicle. The company has yet to determine exactly how the repurchase plan would work.

Jessica Caldwell, an auto analyst with Edmunds.com, says that the company is lucky that the problem involves such a small number of vehicles. If the Volt would have been more popular, then a recall or a buyback plan would be more difficult and costly.
General Motors would like to reiterate that there have been no reports from consumers of any fires. These allegations are only based on incidents that had taken place during testing.

John O'Dell, with Edmunds.com, says that he doubts that many owners will come forward with a buyback request considering the vehicles get about 40 miles per full electric charge and hundreds of miles when the gasoline power kicks in.

We understand that consumers nationwide have been waiting for electric cars for quite some time now. Still, these vehicles can pose fatal complications just as gas-powered vehicles can. Owners of all motor vehicles should check out the Safecar.gov website to make sure their vehicle is safe and isn't reporting any problems.

Continue reading "Chevy Volt Safety Tests Reveal Possibility of Fire Hazard After Car Accidents in Asheville and Elsewhere" »

Two recent scuba diving deaths off the Atlantic Coast in North Carolina within three days of each other by experienced divers has leaders in the diving industry wondering what's going to come as the U.S. Coast Guard investigates.

Star News Online reports each diver had more than 1,000 dives or 20 years of experience in ocean diving. So it is a mystery what could have happened to cause their sudden death. Diving enthusiasts and experts in the industry fear that the sport will start being viewed as unsafe. But the reality is it isn't without risk of injury or an activity that can be taken lightly or participated in without diving knowledge or experience.

Winston-Salem accident attorneys know that several things could potentially go wrong if dive operators or diving companies don't act responsibly for the safety of their customers and crew. An inexperienced diver can experience inner ear barotrauma, pulmonary barotrauma, decompression sickness or arterial gas embolism to name a few.

Certification agencies don't always convey the correct number of diver registrations but it is estimated that there are between 2 and 3 million dives annually worldwide. It isn't against the law for uncertified divers to take a plunge so that also makes it difficult to keep track of the actual number of dives each year with no current tracking system in place.

It is estimated that there are approximately 90 diving fatalities a year in Canada and the U.S. Divers Alert Network (DAN) of America released a 2010 fatalities report which reported there are roughly 16.4 deaths per 100,000 DAN members, meaning divers with diving accident insurance policies. In a relative comparison, the study found there are 13 jogging deaths and 16 motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 individuals annually so the risk of diving accidents is similar to other everyday activities.

The DAN report indicated the most common causes of diving deaths are entrapment, running out of gas in your tank, entanglement, improper use of equipment, rough water, buoyancy control and emergency ascent. Oftentimes more than one of these causes can lead to a diver being involved in an accident.

The risk of accidents leading to death also seem to increase with age and health conditions as 25 percent of diving fatalities are attributed to an underlying medical condition. A diver who is not in good health is at considerable risk of respiratory problems or cardiac arrest during a diving excursion. The average age of DAN members is 45 to 55 years-old and has increased in recent years.

Many enthusiasts choose to dive off the North Carolina coast because there is an abundance of shipwrecks and marine life or they may just be interested in prospering from underwater treasures like sharks' teeth which can value up to $400 on eBay. No matter what the reason, dive operators and members of the diving industry have a responsibility to make sure divers are certified and have the proper equipment needed to make a dive safely.

Continue reading "Operator Negligence Puts Inexperienced North Carolina Divers at High Risk of Injury in Diving Accidents" »

Charlotte pedestrian accidents are on the rise despite city efforts to reduce the risk of injury while crossing the street, according to a recent article in Fox Charlotte.

There have been almost 300 pedestrians involved in accidents this year, but our rail accident lawyers in Greensboro, Charlotte and elsewhere know that crossing the street isn't the only danger a pedestrian faces. Some pedestrians can be injured while waiting for a train or crossing over a track platform to catch a train approaching from the other side.

The city of Charlotte has taken several steps to bolster pedestrian safety throughout the city. More than 500 pedestrian countdown signals have been installed, sidewalks are being widened, ramps have been installed for wheelchair access, and busy streets have been geared for bicycle and pedestrian use by minimizing the amount of normal car traffic traveled on them.

What hasn't been done to enhance pedestrian safety however is to provide protection or reduce the chance of injuries sustained while waiting for a train. The Charlotte Observer reports that a recent close call at the Scaleybark Road train station has many concerned about pedestrians waiting on a train platform or attempting to cross over to the other side. A Charlotte man was lucky to survive after being struck by the 92,000 pound rail. It is the second accident in three months at this particular train station. Many pedestrians are at risk at this station because there are three lanes to contend with: two for vehicles and one for trains, which splits the roadway for about half-a-mile stretch.

Since 2007, the Charlotte Area Transit System reports nearly a dozen rail accidents at the Scaleybark Station. The two most recent accidents were non-fatal but not everyone in recent history has been that lucky. A train traveling at 55-mph requires approximately 600 yards to stop in order to avoid a collision. Pedestrians struck by a moving train have very little chance of survival in most cases.

There are some things that pedestrians should try to keep in mind while waiting on a train platform or trying to cross to the other side. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority offers these transit safety tips:

-Avoid using IPods, portable radios, cell phones or other devices that can make you become distracted. Listening to music or talking on a cell phone diverts your attention from an approaching train.

-Be aware of your surroundings. This includes people, trains or anything else that is going on around you.

-Always stand behind the yellow line until the train approaches, stops and indicates it is safe to step on.

-Familiarize yourself with the train schedule so you can allow plenty of time to purchase a ticket or cross safely to the other side. If you are running late, wait for the next scheduled stop rather than risk being struck by a rail scheduled to leave the station.

-Expect delays or early arrivals for scheduled train stops.

-Avoid wearing long coats or loose clothing that can become lodged in a train's doors or tracks.

Continue reading "Recent Charlotte Rail Accidents Raise Concern for Pedestrian Safety on Train Platforms" »

Oil changes and routine maintenance checks may be a cost North Carolina motorists are opting to cut by doing the work themselves because money is tight or budgets are spread too thin. Our Winston-Salem personal injury attorneys urge you to be careful if you are an inexperienced mechanic or if you do not have the proper tools and equipment. When it comes to vehicle maintenance, do-it-yourself people mean well, but they can put themselves at risk of injury. Backyard mechanics have been known to cut themselves, get burned, and some even crushed because of a shoddy or improperly positioned car lift.

Fox Carolina reports how some garage accidents can be fatal. A 59-year-old male for instance was killed recently while working on a vehicle. He had lifted the car with a jack and was underneath the vehicle doing repairs when it collapsed on him. The weight of the car pinned and trapped the victim underneath with no chance of escape. According to the coroner's report, he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Even trained professionals in automotive repair are at risk of a car repair-related accident in Statesville or elsewhere. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were more than 950,000 mechanics or automotive service technicians working in the U.S. in 2005. From 2003 to 2005, almost 150 mechanics died at work and another 15,680 were injured while working in a repair shop or garage. The fatality rate in 2005 for auto mechanics was 5.3 per 100,000 employees, which was higher than the fatality rate of all other occupations combined.

Whether you work on cars as a hobby or for your occupational trade, or maybe even a customer visiting a repair shop working on your vehicle, the following garage safety tips should always be followed:

-Prevent burn injuries by working on a cool engine and wearing a welding mask anytime you light a flame.

-Eye protection such as goggles is important to reduce the risk of hazardous chemicals or severe cuts getting in or near your eye. Wearing gloves, overalls and steel-toed shoes are also protective gear that can be worn to help reduce the risk or severity of injuries.

-Always use a jack stand and make sure it is securely locked before getting underneath a vehicle to work.

-Before sliding underneath the vehicle, make sure the parking brake is set and block the tires so the vehicle can't move or roll while you are underneath.

-Always turn the vehicle off in an enclosed area and make sure the key is out of the ignition if you are replacing electronic components.

-Stay away from grease and oil spots or other slippery substances on the garage floor.

-Never smoke while working on a vehicle, and keep a fire extinguisher close by at all times.

Continue reading "Auto Repairs in Winston-Salem, Elsewhere Present High Risk for Injury and Potential Death" »

Winston-Salem personal injury attorneys know that parents spend a great deal of time concerned about their children's safety this time of year with all the festivals and Halloween activities throughout North Carolina.

As much fun as it is for kids to dress up in costume to go trick-or-treating, it is potentially an accident waiting to happen. Halloween poses several risks that could cause child injuries in Charlotte, Asheville and elsewhere. Injuries typical this time of year include being struck by a vehicle, eating candy that has been tampered with, wearing a defective costume, and trip-and-fall accidents.

Emergency rooms become crowded with children at Halloween due to head injuries from falls, puncture wounds from costume accessories, eye injuries from masks and burn injuries from flammable costumes. Parents can help protect their kids by choosing a safe costume for them to wear while trick-or-treating or attending a Halloween party.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission offers a safety alert to parents who are concerned about Halloween dangers. Don't let children eat candy or treats before you have a chance to examine. When you get ready to shop for costumes, make sure you look for the flame resistant tag on masks, wigs, beards and costumes. This won't guarantee that it won't catch fire but the product should resist burning and extinguish relatively quickly. When trick-or-treating, only choose homes that are familiar and that are well-lit. Children should use caution when approaching a home to reduce injury caused by lawn ornaments, cracked sidewalks, jack-o-lanterns with real flames, loose railings, or steps that are not properly secured.

Tips for choosing injury prevention costumes:

-Select a costume short enough that fall accidents and tripping hazards aren't a concern for children while walking.

-Pick bright costumes that can be seen by motorists. If a costume is dark, look for reflective tape on hems or seems that can make it more visible.

-Children should wear footwear that fits properly. Wearing inappropriate footwear can lead to broken bones or concussions caused by fall accidents.

-Choose costume accessories wisely. No sharp or hard objects should be used. Hats and scarves should be tied securely to reduce tripping hazards but not too tight to cause restriction of breathing or a strangulation hazard.

-Try using face paint rather than a wearing a mask that can obstruct vision or cause a choking hazard.

Parents should talk to their kids about the dangers of Halloween. The City of Winston-Salem offers these additional tips for safe trick-or-treating:

-Stay away from stranger danger. Only ring door bells or knock on doors of people you are familiar with. Never talk or get inside stranger's vehicle.

-An adult must accompany a child or group of children at all times. Never let them out of your sight.

-Instruct children not to take shortcuts while roaming through neighborhoods asking for candy.

-Only select candy or treats that are sealed in manufacturers' wrappers.

-Remind children to behave responsibly and no horse-play, especially around moving vehicles.

-Designate and instruct what time you want your child to return home.

Continue reading "Winston-Salem Parents Concerned About Halloween Costumes Causing Child Injuries in North Carolina" »