For Better and For Worse

Sometimes, I scream like a little girl. I do this most frequently while riding in the passenger seat of my wife's car. When she's driving. There have been occasions when I am sitting in the passenger seat, white-knuckled and grasping the OSH ("Oh, shoot!" handle) while emitting a high-pitch scream that would make Dakota Fanning jealous. Most of these occasions involve us traveling through an intersection while the light is red for our direction of travel. Other occasions involve when my beautiful, patient, and forgiving wife gets frustrated in a parking lot and flies down the lane at 100 m.p.h. (Clearly exaggerating here, of course. Note the emphasis on forgiving, honey!). So, if you've ever heard a faint screaming similar to what you hear next to a roller coaster at the amusement park, we were likely somewhere nearby. It's a small world, after all.

It has come to my attention I may not be the only person who is sometimes afraid of their spouse's driving habits. Occasionally, individuals will ask, "Can I sue my spouse for an auto accident?" The answer is yes. North Carolina law allows a husband and wife to maintain claims against each other as if they were two unmarried individuals. So, if you are injured riding in your wife's car when she causes an accident, you can sue her to recover for your harms and losses just as you could any other individual. Items that you can recover for include (but may not be limited to) medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Of course, these cases present unique issues from a litigation perspective. If the claim does not settle with the insurance company out of court, then litigation may be the only option in an attempt to recover. Then, among a variety of other issues, it will be your job and your lawyer's job to try to explain to a jury why you are suing your spouse. With the prohibition against mentioning insurance at trial in North Carolina, this could require considerable flexing of your creative muscles in certain circumstances.

Many people might ask, "Why would you want to sue your spouse for an auto accident?" Well, assume that the husband and wife do not have any health insurance. Also assume that there is no medical payments coverage on the auto policy. In situations like these, the couple could be faced with paying medical bills totaling $5,000.00 or more depending on the severity of the auto accident and injuries that the individual sustained. For most American families, this is a sizable chunk of change. In my experience, this couple likely will find that nobody is Neighborly, nobody is On Their Side, and they are not In Good Hands. The couple may want to file a claim under their auto insurance policy in an attempt to help alleviate the financial burden those bills place on the household. This ultimately may lead to litigation.

Married couples take a vow to stand by each other "for better or for worse." Hopefully, the years of marriage are happy ones and there are more "better" times than "worse" times. However, if you should find that an auto accident has caused one of those darker times in your marriage, then consider consulting with an experienced attorney.

Disclaimer: The views of the author are his own. This article is not intended to convey any specific legal advice upon any specific individual. The author is happily married. He hopes to remain that way. The author has considered adding this blog to the "Restricted Sites" on his wife's Internet browser, but then realized that would bring his readership down to 2 (mom & boss being the 2). The author is currently shopping online to mitigate this posting with his wife. The author loves his wife. The author's wife is the coolest, most patient, most intelligent, most forgiving, most beautiful, most awesome, etc., etc., etc. person that he has ever known and arguably that has ever existed on this planet in the history of the universe. For the record, the author's wife has never been in an at-fault accident. Her driving record is better than the author's. The author refuses to elaborate on his driving record and asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.

On the Road Again...

I have done a lot of traveling over the past few weeks for both professional and personal reasons (one of the reasons for the conspicuous lack of postings). I continue to be dismayed by what I see during my travels, as it appears that negligent driving abounds anywhere I go. As I sit now in the safety of my home office and ponder the cornucopia of negligent acts I have witnessed over the past few weeks, I think negligent drivers can be categorized into four main areas:

1. The Bar Raiser: This is the individual who appears to have their phone permanently affixed to their head. They talk incessantly and pay more attention to the conversation than the road. They make the phone companies regret the "Unlimited Plan."

2. The Librarian: This is the individual who likes to read anything while driving except for traffic signs. The most common reading material is the text message, Tweet, Facebook update, and e-mail. However, some "old school" members of this group really enjoy their newspapers and are determined not to let a silly thing like a green light prevent them from finishing George Will's latest column. Some of the most dedicated of this group even dare to read full books while stopped at intersections. Once in a New Moon (pun intended), they may actually pay attention.

3. The Space Cadet: This is the individual who for whatever reason ponders many questions while driving and focuses on anything but the road. Their thought process may include: Who am I? Where am I? What is the meaning of life? Why are bunnies fluffy? That green light is pretty. I will sit here and admire its prettiness. Why is that man's car behind me making loud noises? Doesn't he see the green is pretty?

4. The Taser: This is the individual who does something so stupid, so careless, and so utterly befuddling that were you a patrol officer you would pull them over and summarily tase them in the face just for having the audacity to get behind the wheel.

Some of you may ask why these drivers upset me so. After all, aren't I in the business of negligence as a personal injury lawyer? To some extent, that's true. But, negligence upsets me because I'm on the road with these people. My wife is on the road with these people. My family and friends are on the road with these people. You are on the road with these people. Eventually, the odds are one of us will be a victim of this negligence, which could lead to injury or worse.

I was reading the December 2009 issue of Men's Health the other day (just slightly behind in my subscription reading) and in it was a great article by Oliver Broudy entitled "Dead Man Driving." The beginning of the article poses the following question:

"Car crashes happen to other guys, right? Maybe they don't have your quick reaction time or uncanny ability to multitask behind the wheel. Or maybe they're simply lesser drivers."

This question is such a great way to start that article (which detailed the causes and effects of a crash that left a wife widowed) because I believe its how many of us think when we're behind the wheel. I know I certainly do; when I might occasionally glance at my iPhone while flying down the interstate. I know full well that's how the four drivers described above think. It's only natural for us to be confident in our abilities with a task that is so routine in our lives.

But, consider the following statistics that the article outlined:

2: Percentage of people who are able to drive safely while multitasking. (study by the University of Utah)

78: Percentage of crashes caused by driver distractions. (study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute)

33: Percentage of traffic fatalities that are related to speeding. (study by NHTSA)

271: In feet, the stopping distance of the average car traveling at 60 mph. That's almost the length of a football field. (Edmunds.com)

23x: Increase in crash risk if you text while driving. (study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute)

3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Friday: Time of day and day of the week when most crashes occur (study by the NHTSA).

I find these statistics to be somewhat alarming. I hope you do as well. Negligent driving can create far-reaching and serious consequences for both the negligent driver and the victim. Each of the cases that have come across my desk can attest to that.

In my experience, should you find yourself the victim of The Bar Raiser, The Librarian, The Space Cadet, or The Taser, you'll find it to be a lonely place. Few will be Neighborly, few will Do the Responsible Thing, few will be On Your Side, and you likely will not be In Good Hands. I hope you never find yourself in that position, Faithful Reader; but, should you do please know that we're here to help.

Disclaimer: The views of the author are his own. This article is not intended to convey any specific legal advice upon any specific individual. The author does not condone, sanction, advocate, or support the unauthorized use of violence. He will occasionally enjoy a lively game of Call of Duty, but that is fantasy. Tasers are dangerous weapons and should only be used by those with proper training. The author's description of "The Taser" is a hyperbolic description used to illustrate a point and perhaps elicit a chuckle in its unreasonableness. For those of you would would agree to such a statement in seriousness, the author will state criminal and civil liability could potentially result from such conduct. Consulting with an experienced attorney may be beneficial should you have questions regarding this. Many people do not understand self-defense laws, and the author may one day attempt to explain them on this blog. In the meantime, in the words of a University of Florida scholar, "Don't Tase me, bro'!"

Hail Cesar!

I think my two year old is absolutely adorable. Each morning, we share breakfast and a cup of coffee together. He has his own special breakfast, but always stares longingly at mine. After breakfast, we high-five each other and I go about my day and he goes about his. At night, we usually curl up together on the couch and he eventually falls asleep with his head in my lap.

But, while he is adorable, he is also a handful and quite frankly just a plain old jerk sometimes. He makes other peoples' two year olds cry and run away. He is loud and unruly, and he makes other people scream with fright and run for the hills as if he were one of the Children of the Corn. So, to control his aberrant behavior my wife and I decided to enroll him in a basic manners class before he caused so much trouble he got us sued. Imagine our dismay when the owner of said class emailed me one day and said that our particular two year old was too much of a handful for the basic manners class. He wasn't welcome there and instead would have to go to a "special" class.

At this point, I think it's probably important to mention that my two year old isn't what you might think him to be. Did you know that he's actually a dog? A German Shepard to be exact. So, my wife, myself, and Brody went through four weeks of intensive Feisty Fido classes and now my two year old is (slightly) less feisty. My wife and I were also comforted to know that Brody truly is not the worst behaved dog in the City of Raleigh.

Many people, especially those with puppies like mine, often wonder if they will be on the hook for someone's medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering should their feisty Fido get a little too feisty with somebody's hand or leg or other appendage. The answer to those queries is very lawyerly: it depends. There are a wide variety of specific state and local laws that govern domestic animals such as dogs.

Generally, North Carolina as a whole follows the same rule of law for domestic animals that most other jurisdictions follow. That is, the owner of a domestic animal (dog) will be liable for injuries caused by that animal if the owner knew or should know of the animal's vicious propensities (i.e., it has bitten someone before and/or snarls at anybody who comes within a few feet of it). In addition, North Carolina provides by statute that the owner of a dog will be strictly liable (no fault needed) for injuries or property damage inflicted by a "dangerous dog." The term dangerous dog has a very specific meaning set out in the statute, which you can find here.

Most dogs bark and act "aggressive" because they are afraid and/or they're just overly excited. And certain breeds can certainly be more intimidating than others. For example, while I see a cute and cuddly puppy who wants to play, you may see a jumping, barking, and lunging German Shepard. The same type of dog that police use to catch and bite criminals. Owners of dogs can avoid potential legal issues by exercising reasonable care, common sense and courtesy, and taking the necessary steps to properly train their dog. This, we have discovered, takes quite a bit of patience and practice.

But, there are some dogs that are owned by people who are not as responsible as my wife and I. Their dogs do not resemble anything that Cesar Millan has trained. More likely, their dog resembles something Michael Vick has trained. This is very unfortunate for the animal and it's unfortunately a large problem in certain areas. If you have found yourself confronted and injured by a dog like this, then consider consulting with an experienced attorney to protect your legal rights.

Disclaimer: The author's views are his own. This blog post is not intended to convey specific legal advice upon anyone. The author's dog, Brody, has never attacked anyone. It is a track record the author is proud of. The author's dog loves to watch old Rin Tin Tin movies and loves police officers. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee that this trend will continue should you try to break into the author's humble abode. The author thinks Cesar Millan is a god-like person who deserves some type of Nobel award. Cesar Millan, the author believes, does not live in North Carolina, but the author used a company that is equally as good and recommends it to anybody. The author has attached pictures of his dog to show off said dog as he has no actual children. The author understands that displaying pictures to anybody who will look is the appropriate dorky parent thing to do.

Please, Watch Your Step

Spend a day fielding new callers in any personal injury law firm and you’ll quickly realize that there are many members of the general public that have yet to master the fine art of walking. They seem to have the most difficulty in grocery stores and retail giants like Wal-Mart.

Premise liability cases, the most common of which are the “slip and falls,” can present unique challenges and are often difficult to prosecute. Generally, owners of property are required to exercise reasonable care toward all lawful visitors. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the visitor. To do this, the property owner should warn the visitor of non-obvious and dangerous conditions known to the landowner, and to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and to thereafter make them safe. The duty to make safe dangerous conditions on the property is usually satisfied if a reasonable warning has been given.

This does not mean, however, that negligence on the part of the landowner is automatic if you happen to fall down on their property because of some defect or unsafe condition and no warning has been given. There is no duty to warn if the dangerous condition is so obvious that the visitor should reasonably have been aware of it (i.e., a gaping pothole in the parking lot, red Kool-Aid spilled all over the white aisle floor). All of us have a responsibility to see what ought to be seen. In essence, to watch where we're going. For example, if you’re walking around in the garden department of a store and you see a gigantic puddle of water in the floor, the store is more than likely not liable if you happen to voluntarily walk through the puddle and slip in the water.

Contributory negligence is almost always an issue in the standard slip and fall case. The nagging question in the back of jurors' minds is often how did the person not see that or where were they looking? A claimant seeking to recover in the standard premise liability case will often have to have a legitimate and logical reason for failing to see the condition that caused them to fall and be injured. If inattentiveness, a lack of due care, or running or fooling around are involved then the chances of recovery are likely very small.

What is reasonable in the premise liability case ultimately rests with the jury, as is the case with all negligence cases. For example, it is likely not going to be considered reasonable to expect the landowner to clean up all spills in the store immediately upon occurrence. It may, however, be reasonable to expect the landowner to have found and cleaned the spill after being on the floor for an extended period or time, or at the very least to place warning signs for the protection of visitors.

Slip and falls only comprise a portion of the wide variety of cases that fall into the Premise Liability category. Regardless of their type, premise liability cases can require quite a bit of investigation to successfully prosecute, and obtaining the evidence needed can sometimes be tricky. If you have had an incident on someone's property, then consider consulting with an experienced attorney to ensure that your rights are properly protected.