Carolinas Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent North and South Carolina cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Gaston, Mecklenburg and Wake counties in North Carolina and Charleston, Horry and Richland in South Carolina. Subscribe to VerdictSearch Carolinas for access to all Carolinas verdictsPricing OptionsSuit: Turning ahead of blind curve was inherently dangerous
Type:
Verdict-Defendant
State:
North Carolina
Venue:
Buncombe County
Court:
Buncombe County, Superior Court
Injury Type(s):
arm-fracture (fracture, radius);
knee; knee-meniscus, tear;
other-avulsion fracture; wrist-fracture, wrist;
surgeries/treatment-knee surgery
Case Type:
Motor Vehicle – Left Turn
Case Name:
Keith Sides v. Autumn Coates and Rodney Coates,
No. 13 CVS 1215
Date:
May 1, 2014
Plaintiff(s):
Keith Sides (Male, 60 Years)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Withheld;
for
Keith Sides
Plaintiff Expert(s):
Michael Sutton;
Accident Investigation & Reconstruction/ Failure Analysis/Product Liability;
Cary,
NC called by
Withheld
Defendant(s):
Auto-Owners,
Autumn Coates,
Rodney Coates
Defense Attorney(s):
David W. Hood;
Patrick, Harper & Dixon Attorneys at Law;
Hickory,
NC,
for
Autumn Coates, Rodney Coates ■ Brady J. Fulton;
Northup McConnell & Sizemore, PLLC;
Asheville,
NC,
for
Auto-Owners
Insurer(s):
Auto-Owners for Sides (UIM)
Nationwide for Coates
Plaintiff Keith Sides, 60 and self-employed, was traveling on Bat Cave Road in McDowell County. As he rounded a sharp mountain curve, he crashed into a vehicle driven by Autumn Coates, as Coates was making a left turn onto a side road. Sides claimed wrist and knee injuries as a result of the collision. Sides sued Autumn Coates for negligence. Rodney Coates, who owned the vehicle Autumn was driving, was also named as a defendant. Sides alleged that Autumn Coates was negligent in attempting a left turn in an area that was inherently unsafe. Sides maintained that, although there was a road to complete a left turn, Coates should not have attempted a left turn where she did because it could not be done safely with the risk of traffic coming around the sharp curve immediately before the turn. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the safer option would have been to ignore the first turn-in road and proceed instead to the second turn-in lane, which provided a clear view of any potential danger. Plaintiff’s counsel offered the expert testimony of an accident reconstructionist, who opined that the sight distance where Coates made her turn did not allow for a safe left turn that would allow time for motorists coming around the curve to react. In addition, the expert calculated that Sides’ speed was 10 miles below the posted speed limit. Defendants disputed liability. They contended that Sides’ own negligence was the sole contributing factor in the collision. Defense counsel argued that Sides was negligent in traveling too fast for conditions as he rounded the curve and presented evidence that Sides had passed another vehicle against a double yellow line at a high rate of speed within a mile before the collision. Also, defendants argued that the damage to the vehicles was described by the investigating officer and fire department as being extensive, suggesting high speeds at impact, which refuted the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, who described the damage as minor. Defense counsel further argued that local residents have been making left turns in this precise location for decades without incident.
Sides claimed multiple injuries, including significant damage to his left wrist and left knee. More specifically, he claimed a fracture of the radius in the wrist and a small avulsion fracture in the carpal bones, as well as a complex meniscus tear in the knee. He underwent three surgeries on his knee in an effort to repair the damage. Sides claimed approximately $135,000 in past medical expense.
The trial was bifurcated on the issue of liability and damages. At the conclusion of the first phase of the trial, the jury found Sides was contributorily negligent. As a result, a defense verdict was entered and there was no need to proceed with the damages phase of the trial. However, the parties had entered into a confidential high/low agreement prior to trial, pursuant to which the plaintiff was to receive compensation.
Judge:
Alan Thornburg
Demand:
$100,000 (policy limits), with right to pursue substantial UIM coverage with Auto-Owners
Offer:
N/A
Trial Length:
3
days
Trial Deliberations:
2
hours
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel for the Coates. The attorney representing Auto-Owners did not respond to a request for comment.