Have you ever driven through a green light in North Carolina? Ever wondered how in North Carolina you can have the green light and someone can run a red light, severly injure you, and still not recover for your injuries? North Carolina is one of a handfull of states that clinges to the antiquated notion of contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery for negligence. In other words if by your own actions you contribute one percent and the defendant is 99% at fault you still cannot recover in North Carolina for your injuries. This is not new law. In 1955 the Supreme Court of North Carolina looked at these issues in the Hyder case. Hyder v. Asheville Storage Battery Co., 242 N.C. 553, 89 S.E.2d 124 (1955). In Hyder, the Court looked at what duties are owed regardless of whether you have a legal right to enter an intersection. “Unquestionably it is the duty of the driver of an automobile approaching a street intersection, when faced with a municipally maintained traffic signal showing red, to stop before entering. It is also true that if faced with a green light the driver is warranted in moving into the intersection unless the circumstances are such as to indicate caution to one of reasonable prudence. Notwithstanding the driver is faced with green light, however, the duty rests upon him to maintain a reasonable and proper lookout for other vehicles in or approaching the intersection.” Hyder v. Asheville Storage Battery Co., 242 N.C. 553, 556, 89 S.E.2d 124, 127-28 (1955). The Court went on to state: ‘The fact that the operator of a motor vehicle may have a green light facing him as he approaches and enters an intersection where traffic is regulated by automatic traffic control signals does not relieve him of his legal duty to maintain a proper lookout, to keep his vehicle under reasonable control”. Hyder v. Asheville Storage Battery Co., 242 N.C. 553, 557, 89 S.E.2d 124, 128 (1955). The Court was clearly concerned about people automatially relying on the then very unreliable traffic control devices. Although our deices have improved with technology, human error or the lack of the same is still an issue. Even in 2011 we are still having courts in North Carolina trying to decide where the bright line is to absolve someone of responsibility for the negligence of others. In the Bass case, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision did a good job tracing the evolution of the need or lack thereof for contributory negligence. “The fact that the operator of a motor vehicle may have a green light facing him as he approaches and enters an intersection where traffic is regulated by automatic traffic control signals does not relieve him of his legal duty to maintain a proper lookout, to keep his vehicle under reasonable control….” Bass v. Lee, 255 N.C. 73, 79, 120 S.E.2d 570, 573 (1961) (quoting Funeral Service v. Charlotte Coach Lines, 248 N.C. 146, 102 S.E.2d 816 (quoting Cox v. Freight Lines, 236 N.C. 72, 72 S.E.2d 25); citing Williams v. Funeral Home, 248 N.C. 524, 103 S.E.2d 714; Shoe v. Hood, 251 N.C. 719, 112 S.E.2d 543). However, “in the absence of anything which gives or should give him notice to the contrary, a motorist has the right to assume and to act on the assumption that another motorist will observe the rules of the road and stop in obedience to a traffic signal.” Strathopoulos v. Shook, 251 N.C. 33, 36-37, 110 S.E.2d 452, 455 (1959) (quoting Cox, supra). Thus, the mere fact that plaintiff failed to observe traffic conditions east of the intersection is insufficient to establish that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, since “[w]hether such failure to look was a proximate cause of the collision depended upon whether, if he had looked, what he would or should have seen was sufficient to put him on notice, at a time when plaintiff could by the exercise of due care have avoided the collision, that defendant would not stop in obedience to the red light.” Id. at 37, 110 S.E.2d 452, 110 S.E.2d at 455 (citing Currin v. Williams, 248 N.C. 32, 102 S.E.2d 455). As a result, the Supreme Court and this Court have held that evidence tending to show that a driver who entered an intersection in reliance on a green light while traveling at about 15 to 20 miles per hour and collided with a driver who entered the intersection against a red light while traveling at 35 to 40 miles per hour and who was approximately 100 feet from the intersection at the time that the plaintiff entered the intersection, Id. at 37, 102 S.E.2d 455, 110 S.E.2d at 456; that a driver who entered an intersection in reliance on a green light while looking ahead into the intersection rather than “sideways” and traveling at about 15 to 20 miles per hour collided with a driver who entered the intersection against a red light, Currin, 248 N.C. at 35, 102 S.E.2d at 457-58; that a driver who entered an intersection in reliance on a green light, after looking both right and left without seeing anything, and collided with another vehicle that entered the intersection at 35 to 40 miles per hour, Wright v. Pegram, 244 N.C. 45, 48-49, 92 S.E.2d 416, 419 (1956); and that a driver who entered an intersection in reliance on a green light without looking to his left, particularly given that his view was blocked by a school bus, and collided with another vehicle, Seaman v. McQueen, 51 N.C.App. 500, 504-05, 277 S.E.2d 118, 120-21 (1981), does not establish the existence of contributory negligence as a matter of law. See also Cicogna v. Holder, 345 N.C. 488, 489-90, 480 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1997) (stating that the issue of contributory negligence should not have been submitted to the jury when “[t] he only evidence presented was that the plaintiff had the green light and was struck by the defendant, who violated the red light.”). Instead, the appellate courts in this jurisdiction have simply held that such evidence is sufficient to support the submission of a contributory negligence issue to the jury, with the jury given the responsibility for determining whether any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff barred his or her recovery. Bass, 255 N.C. 73, 120 S.E.2d 570 (holding that evidence tending to show that a driver who entered an intersection when the controlling traffic signal was green and made no effort to avoid a collision despite being warned that another driver had “run” a red light and was about to collide with his vehicle supported the submission of a contributory negligence issue to the jury). After a careful examination of the relevant authorities, we have not been able to find any reported decision concluding that a driver who entered an intersection at a time when the light was green was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Bass v. Alvarado, 713 S.E.2d 251 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) Therefore, in North Carolina, you should continue to use caution while driving, and if you enter an intersection, don’t forget… until we change our laws, you don’t have an absolute right to enter… use good common sense and w
Focused On Serving Your Needs

"UPDATE: To protect your safety during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, we offer video conferencing, as well as telephone conferences, in place of face-to-face meetings. Please contact our office today to set up a remote consultation."
Contributory Negligence: Why in North Carolina a Green Light is not enough.
Categories
- Actos (3)
- Auto Accident Law (40)
- Blog (37)
- Business Or Tourist Affected By Power Outage (1)
- Car Accidents (105)
- Car Crash? What To Do Next (1)
- Choosing Your North Carolina Injury Or Disability Attorney (1)
- Civil Trial (64)
- Damages (1)
- David Bridgman Joins O'Malley Tunstall (1)
- DraftKings Or FanDuel Fantasy Sports (1)
- Drug Maker Failed To Warn Cancer Patients Of Permanent Hair Loss (1)
- E-cigarette Exploding Causing Burns (1)
- Federal Social Security Disability Cases (1)
- Firm News (6)
- Haeco Leaked Confidential Employee Information (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Infection Following Hip Or Knee Replacement Surgery (1)
- Injured By A Drunk Driver (3)
- Insurance Company (1)
- Joe Tunstall And Susan O’Malley Selected 2019 NC Super Lawyers (1)
- Legally Speaking (119)
- Long-term Disability (5)
- Low Testosterone (1)
- Motor Vehicle Accidents (16)
- Move Over! Bill Requires Slow Drivers To Move Over From Left Lane (1)
- Nash County Beta Club Going To National Convention (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Medical Malpractice Verdict Tunstall (1)
- NONE (1)
- North Carolina Farmers With Syngenta Corn Claims (1)
- North Carolina Injury Attorney (1)
- O'Malley Tunstall has two named to Super Lawyers 2021 NC (1)
- O'Malley Tunstall Referrals: The Best Advertising (1)
- Pedestrian Accident (1)
- Personal Injuries (4)
- Personal Injury (3)
- Personal Injury Law (65)
- Premises Liability (20)
- Products Liability (42)
- Protect Yourself, Keep Vehicle Under Control During MVA (1)
- Second Wreck – Use The Same Attorney? (1)
- Serious Heart Or Kidney Problems On Invokana Or Canagliflozin (1)
- Serious Injury? Need NC Social Security, Workers' Compensation And Auto Accident Lawyer? (1)
- Settlement Child Hurt Bounce House Inflatable (1)
- Sexual Enhancement (1)
- Slip Trip Fall (1)
- Social Security (11)
- Social Security (8)
- Social Security Disability (24)
- Social Security Disability Backlog 2017 (1)
- Social Security Disability Benefits (1)
- Social Security Disability If You Cannot Use Both Hands (1)
- Social Security Disability Limited Time To Apply For Benefits (1)
- Social Security Law (55)
- Social Security Wait Times (2)
- SSDI (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Trips Slips And Falls At Stores (1)
- Truck Accidents (3)
- Truck Accidents (63)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2015 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2017 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Selected To 2015 List Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Tunstall Selected To The 2017 List As Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Wags 4 Tags (1)
- Wear Helmet While Riding Horses (1)
- Winter Driving Safety (1)
- Workers' Compensation (63)
- Workers' Compensation Law (17)
- Xarelto (1)
Archives
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (2)
- January 2021 (2)
- November 2020 (1)
- October 2020 (2)
- September 2020 (5)
- August 2020 (6)
- July 2020 (6)
- June 2020 (7)
- May 2020 (6)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (8)
- February 2020 (6)
- January 2020 (6)
- December 2019 (7)
- November 2019 (5)
- October 2019 (5)
- September 2019 (7)
- August 2019 (7)
- July 2019 (6)
- June 2019 (5)
- May 2019 (6)
- April 2019 (10)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (6)
- January 2019 (7)
- December 2018 (5)
- November 2018 (5)
- October 2018 (6)
- September 2018 (3)
- August 2018 (9)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (9)
- May 2018 (8)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (9)
- February 2018 (9)
- January 2018 (11)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (9)
- October 2017 (11)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (11)
- July 2017 (9)
- June 2017 (8)
- May 2017 (12)
- April 2017 (10)
- March 2017 (11)
- February 2017 (9)
- January 2017 (10)
- December 2016 (10)
- November 2016 (5)
- October 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (8)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (3)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (4)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (4)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (8)
- December 2014 (3)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (3)
- July 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (6)
- March 2014 (6)
- February 2014 (4)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (4)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (5)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (2)
- December 2012 (7)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (5)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (2)
- June 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (5)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (8)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (8)
- August 2011 (9)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (4)


