Speeding Five Miles Over Limit Bars Recovery
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
Tags:
None
The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a verdict finding that a contributory negligence defense applied to a driver going five miles over the speed limit. This is true even though the defendant crossed the centerline and hit the plaintiff head-on.
Although the investigating officer testified that the injured party's speed was not a factor, the Court of Appeals held that the jury could find that the speed was a factor.
This case is still another example of the harsh contributory negligence law. This law provides that if an injured party is negligent even to the extent of one-percent, that such negligence prevents recovery no matter how aggressive the negligence is on the part of the defendant.
In this case, the defendant suddenly cut around a minivan parked in the opposite lane of travel and hit the injured party head-on, causing the injury.
North Carolina is only one of four states which has a pure contributory negligence rule. In most other states, the courts apply a comparative negligence rule which waives the relative negligence of each party and adjusts a recovery accordingly. For instance, if the jury should find that the injured party was ten-percent at fault, the compensation to the injured party would be reduced by ten-percent. In North Carolina, however, only one-percent negligence would be enough to totally prevent the plaintiff from recovering for his injuries.
The case is Whisnant v. Herrear, which was decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 2, 2004. Our courts in similar cases have held that in order for an injured party's contributory negligence to bar recovery, the negligence must have been a cause of the collision or other events which resulted in the plaintiff's injuries.
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that there was evidence from which a jury could find that the defendant's negligence in speeding 40mph in a 35mph zone was at least a partial cause of the collision.
According to the investigating officer, the defendant's car left no skid marks. However, the injured party's skid marks were thirty-two feet long. The defendant testified that he did not see the injured party comi9ng when he pulled around a stopped minivan which children were entering and exiting from when he made his move.
The Court of Appeals held that: "The jury could have found that, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary prudence, the plaintiff (injured party) could have foreseen that some generally injurious consequence might occur were he to continue speeding on a narrow road towards a vehicle stopped in the opposite lane and from which children were exiting."
If you or a loved one have a question regarding North Carolina's contributory negligence law, please contact us by filling out the form below.
For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.