243 N.C. App. 548
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff (administrator of Jeremy Scheffer’s estate) sued Dalton for wrongful death after Dalton’s car turned left on NC-115 and collided with Scheffer’s moped on a dark evening.
- Scheffer’s factory headlamp had been broken; he had attached a battery-powered Blackburn bicycle light to the left handlebar. No direct evidence showed whether that light was on at the time of the crash.
- Witnesses described a very faint or no light; one witness saw a “streak” pass and did not see any light. The accident occurred within Scheffer’s lane while Dalton was executing an early left turn, crossing the double yellow line.
- Expert evidence: moped left ~35 feet of skid marks; moped top speed ≈ 27 mph; estimations placed Scheffer’s speed 19–32 mph. Dalton’s speed at impact was low (≈6–7 mph).
- Trial court denied a jury instruction on the last-clear-chance doctrine, submitted four negligence theories against Dalton to the jury, and admitted a partially redacted police crash file (redactions in Scheffer’s alcohol fields; Dalton’s fields showed zeros/blanks). Jury found Dalton negligent but also found Scheffer contributorily negligent. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of partially redacted crash report (alcohol fields) | Redaction of Scheffer’s alcohol fields next to Dalton’s blanks/zeros highlighted the redaction and prejudiced the jury, implying Scheffer’s guilt | Crash report and officer testimony already showed Dalton had no signs of impairment; defendant’s alcohol status was relevant and admission was proper | Admission was not prejudicial; other evidence and testimony established the same point — affirmed |
| Submission of contributory negligence to jury | Trial court should not have submitted contributory negligence because evidence did not support that Scheffer was negligent | Evidence (poor/insufficient lighting, witness inability to see moped, expert skid-mark/speed data) supports at least a scintilla of contributory negligence | Sufficient evidence existed to submit contributory negligence to the jury — affirmed |
| Refusal to instruct jury on last clear chance | Court erred by refusing the last-clear-chance instruction; Dalton may have had occasion to see Scheffer after the passing car and could have avoided the collision | Court concluded Dalton never saw Scheffer, so last clear chance did not apply | Trial court erred: evidence could support each element of last clear chance and the issue should have been submitted to the jury — reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Morrison, 148 N.C. App. 98 (appellate standard on showing prejudice from evidentiary error)
- Prevette v. Wilkes Gen. Hosp., 37 N.C. App. 425 (standards for viewing evidence on contributory negligence submission)
- Cobo v. Raba, 347 N.C. 541 (more-than-a-scintilla rule for submitting contributory negligence)
- Brewer v. Harris, 279 N.C. 288 (contributory negligence as a bar to recovery)
- Wade v. Jones Sausage Co., 239 N.C. 524 (elements of the last clear chance/discovered peril doctrine)
- Ingram v. Smokey Mountain Stages, 225 N.C. 444 (requirement of an appreciable interval of time for last clear chance)
- Battle v. Chavis, 266 N.C. 778 (last clear chance requires a clear, not merely possible, chance to avoid injury)