Personal Injury

Catholic teacher who says she was fired for in-vitro treatments may have her day in court

September 9, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can my employer fire me because I filed a workers’ compensation claim?”

A sex-discrimination lawsuit brought by a schoolteacher at an elementary school associated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana will proceed to trial after United States District Court Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. denied the diocese’s motion for summary judgment.

The teacher, Emily Herx, sued the diocese in 2012 after she was terminated from her teaching position at St. Vincent de Paul School. Herx’s firing came after diocese officials discovered Herx underwent a procedure for in vitro fertilization. In-vitro fertilization is a process in which a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg are joined outside the womb, normally in a petri dish. After the egg and sperm are successfully joined, the resulting embryo is placed into the woman’s womb.

Herx underwent in-vitro fertilization because she suffers from infertility. She argued in her lawsuit that infertility is a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and that her termination violated both the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Roman Catholic Church disapproves of in-vitro fertilization because additional embryos are created to increase the odds of a successful pregnancy. When an embryo is successfully placed in a mother’s womb, the additional embryos are destroyed. The Church believes that human life begins at the moment of conception, or when the sperm and egg join, so the destruction of embryos constitutes the willful destruction of human life.

Enterprising burglar seeks compensation from pizza joint he robbed

September 2, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question ” I have been injured on another person’s property. What should I do now?”

Police responding to a burglary at the Radio Shack across from Concord Mills Mall in Concord, North Carolina found smashed-out windows and one suspect, who they removed from the scene in handcuffs. Police tracked down a second suspect a short time later, injured from a possible fall in a wooded area. Rescue crews used a stretcher to extricate the man.

If the injured alleged burglar is as enterprising as Nigel Sykes, he may end up suing Radio Shack and the police for his injuries.

Sykes forced his way through the back door of the Newport, Delaware restaurant Seasons Pizza on November 30, 2010. Sykes held up employees using a handgun; they gave him $140. As Sykes made his way to the front of the store, however, employees wrestled him to the ground and grabbed his handgun.

After that, Sykes alleged, all of the Seasons Pizza employees began punching, kicking and pouring hot soup on his body. He alleged that he suffered “a brutal beating” that ended with him being knocked unconscious. Sykes brought suit in federal court seeking $260,000 in compensation from the restaurant. He also sued two Newport police officers who he said used stun guns on him improperly and denied him access to medical attention.

Public policy ends suit brought by man against skydive-sponsoring Smiling Moose owner

August 21, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What if the accident was my fault?”

Public policy has ended a man’s lawsuit against a bar owner for injuries the man sustained in a skydiving incident.

The man, Stephen Scheuren, was a spectator at The Smiling Moose Saloon & Grill’s 2009 Moosefest, a charity event organized by Smiling Moose owner Cheryl Vogel. At the event, paper plates with numbers written on them were scattered throughout a skydiving landing zone. Skydivers were to pick up plates on landing. Those whose numbers were written on the selected plates won raffle prizes.

Two tandem skydivers, including Manitowoc Mayor Justin Nickel, landed in the landing zone but then slid between two tents into the group of spectators, striking Scheuren and an eight-year-old boy. Scheuren suffered unspecified leg injuries that required surgery.

Mayor Nickel was ultimately dismissed from Scheuren’s lawsuit, but Scheuren obtained a default judgment against one defendant and settled with several others. Only Scheuren’s claims against Vogel remained. She argued that Wisconsin’s so-called “recreational immunity statute” shielded her and The Smiling Moose from liability. A circuit court ruled against Scheuren, so Scheuren appealed.

Pet killings leave pet owners with a lot of grief, little to recover in damages

July 29, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What does the “one-bite rule” mean in NC dog bite cases?”

A killer is on the loose in Union County. On Saturday, a pet owner in the county notified law-enforcement authorities that his two Great Danes had been shot by arrows.

An officer responding to the call found one dog lying near the back corner of the man’s property, while a second dog was found under a shed. An arrow was still stuck in the first dog. The officer could not find a second arrow, but observed what appeared to be an arrow wound to the second dog’s neck. Both dogs died of their injuries.

This followed the fatal shooting of a dog in Union County last week. In that case, a woman found her husky mix dead under her storage building, with four gunshot wounds. The storage building also was riddled bullet holes, according to the Union County Sheriff’s Office. The dog’s owner said the husky was valued at $500.

Last month, two dog owners in Union County reported that their pets had been poisoned with antifreeze. The dog owners theorized that hunters had put out antifreeze to ward off dogs or coyotes. The Union County Sheriff said an investigator was working on those cases, and that using antifreeze to get rid of dogs was illegal.

North Carolina treats cruelty to animals as a criminal matter, and the state routinely prosecutes those who commit cruel acts upon or who are neglectful toward animals. But what recourse does a pet owner have against one who is found responsible for the death of a beloved animal?

Believe it or not, the North Carolina courts have answered this question, but pet owners may not like the answer.

Man gored by running bull—and many others—have no case in North Carolina

July 10, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What if the accident was my fault?”

A 32-year-old American author who wrote a survival guide for Spain’s Pamplona bull-running festival was gored on Wednesday by a 1,320-pound bull named Brevito during the annual San Fermin festival.

The man, Bill Hillman, was skewered in the right thigh by the bull’s horn; the bull also gored a 35-year-old Spanish man in the chest. A friend of Hillman’s said the bull’s horn had missed the artery in Hillman’s right thigh and that Hillman had undergone surgery at a local hospital and was expected to survive.

Hillman co-authored a 2014 e-book called “Fiesta: How to Survive the Bulls of Pamplona.”

Dozens of people were injured in the annual bull-running, held on a narrow, half-mile course. The bulls took under four minutes to run the course before being led into a bull ring to face matadors and death. The most recent human bull-run fatality came in 2009, when a Spanish man was gored to death.

Hillman may be lucky, but if he thinks he has any legal claims, he is out of luck. Of course he couldn’t sue the bull, but could he sue Pamplona or the outfit that organizes the bull runs? No. The reason why may seem obvious, but in the law, sometimes obvious answers lead to absurd results.

In injury claims, time is the enemy of justice, in more ways than one

July 1, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What can you sue for in a personal injury case?”

Time cures all ills, as the saying goes. For at least one North Carolina sex abuse victim, time is the enemy of justice.

On July 1, a Stanly County Superior Court Judge dismissed a sex abuse charge against the Rev. Joseph Kelleher. The judge ruled that Kelleher, who is 86 and lives in a retirement home in High Point, is not mentally competent to stand trial.

The sexual abuse allegation was levelled against Kelleher in 2010 by a man who said he was abused by Kelleher in 1977, when the man was 14-years-old. At that time, Kelleher worked at Our Lady of the Annunciation Catholic Church in Albemarle.

Lawyers for the victim called the case “one of the oldest, if not oldest” criminal case pending in Stanly County, and questioned why it was delayed for some four years before being dismissed.

Delays of a different kind resulted in dismissal of two civil lawsuits brought in Mecklenburg County against the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those lawsuits were premised on decades-old sex abuse of children by Kelleher and another priest. Lawyers for the diocese argued successfully that plaintiffs in those cases missed the deadline to file their lawsuits.

From online Tinder to offline DA’s office: Workplace sexual harassment is real

June 26, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matt Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I wait a few months to pursue a personal injury claim?”

The online dating world took a collective gasp as one of its leading lights, Tinder Chief-Marketing-Officer Justin Mateen, was accused of sexual harassment and discrimination. The company says it has suspended the cofounder.

Tinder compiles information from users’ Facebook accounts and, based on a set of criteria, tries to connect potential mates.

In the sex harassment lawsuit, brought by former Tinder Vice-President of Marketing Whitney Wolfe, Mateen is accused of connecting with Wolfe inappropriately both online and the old-fashioned way. Wolfe alleges Mateen pursued her romantically, and the two began “officially dating” in February of 2013.

It didn’t take long, however, before Mateen became verbally controlling and abusive. He told Wolfe if she hurt his pride by dating another man, he’d fire her. A few months after breaking off their relationship, Mateen called Wolfe a “whore” at a company event. He also went behind Wolfe’s back, describing her as a “gold digger” and a “liberal lying slut” to coworkers. Wolfe claims pressure from Mateen led to her termination.

North Carolina Legislature Considers Moped Regulations

June 5, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “What can you sue for in a personal injury case?”

A North Carolina Senate committed has added language to a piece of legislation that will now require drivers of mopeds to purchase liability insurance before legally operating the vehicles on state roadways. The measure, House Bill 1145, has already been approved by the house, though the new language will need to be agreed to before the bill progresses any further.
The language attached by the Senate says that moped drivers are required to register their vehicles with the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, in addition to purchasing liability coverage. Moped drivers will have until July 1, 2015 to comply with the new regulations.

Under current North Carolina law, mopeds are not among those vehicles that must be registered or insured in the state. Mopeds are also not subject to any property taxes, allowing owners to essentially avoid any fees associated with their use.

The new measure would require moped owners to pay a $15 registration fee as well as demonstrate to the Division of Motor Vehicles that the moped was designed and manufactured specifically for highway use. These requirements mirror those for motorcyclists, something that some legislators believe is necessary to guarantee the safety of all North Carolina motorists.

Woman claims anxiety over work commute entitles her to damages

May 29, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can my employer fire me because I filed a workers’ compensation claim?”

A New Jersey woman is driving workplace discrimination claims in a new direction, claiming that congested roadways on her work commute aggravated her “great anxiety and depression.” The woman, Andrea DeGerolamo, doesn’t blame Gov. Chris Christie for the congestion; instead, she blames her former employer, Fulton Financial Corp., for not letting her change her work schedule to avoid it.

DeGerolamo alleged in the suit that her doctor mandated the change in commuting times after determining that DeGerolamo was clinically depressed and that her condition was “especially aggravated by crowded roadways during the heavy traffic of rush hour.”

Fulton hired DeGerolamo in 2007 as a marketing coordinator. In her suit – premised upon New Jersey’s workplace antidiscrimination act – she alleged that Fulton refused “to enter into an interactive dialogue… aimed at reaching a reasonable accommodation.”

DeGerolamo alleged that she took a medical leave of absence in 2012, but after returning to work she was terminated. She said her termination amounted to discrimination, based on her efforts to “address alleged workplace bias.” She also alleged that Fulton retaliated against her for using the Family Medical Leave Act to take some time off.

In the lawsuit, DeGerolamo sought damages for lost wages and benefits, front pay, medical insurance, punitive damages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees. Fulton has removed the case to Federal Court, where it is pending in the New Jersey District.

North Carolina Bicyclists Face High Hurdles After Being Involved In An Accident

May 15, 2014 | AS Personal Injury Lawyers

Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “What can you sue for in a personal injury case?”

A recent article by the Carolina Public Press concerned some of the difficulties injured bicyclists have when bringing a personal injury claim against those drivers who were responsible for the collision. The article explains that a combination of factors, including North Carolina’s contributory negligence doctrine and a deeply ingrained bias against bicyclists, contribute to making it difficult for cyclists to successfully sue after being involved in a car accident.

The first thing that makes it hard for bicyclists to bring personal injury cases after a car accident is the negligence system that exists in North Carolina. A handful of states, including North Carolina, use a contributory negligence standard that says that if an injured party is at all responsible for the accident that led to their injuries, then that person will not be able to recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit.

The vast majority of states in the U.S. follow a different doctrine known as comparative negligence, which apportions damages based on the percentage of responsibility of each of the parties. For example, if a bicyclist is found to be even 1 percent at fault for an accident, in comparative negligence states, they will only be able to collect 99 percent of the total damages awarded in the case. In North Carolina, that same cyclist would be barred from collecting any damages.