When a person suffers serious injuries from a North Carolina car crash or other type of accident, it’s natural to question who was at fault. It’s not merely about placing blame; it’s because when the accident was caused by a person’s or entity’s negligence, the injured person might be able to recover compensation for their injuries.
Sometimes this is straightforward. Typically, a car accident involves two (or more) drivers. While there could be questions of which driver caused the accident—or whether both drivers were partially responsible—each party’s lawyers will conduct discovery to uncover evidence that sets forth each driver’s liability and what that might be worth in a lawsuit. North Carolina is an at-fault state, which means the driver who caused the crash is liable for the victim’s damages. However, the state also follows a strict contributory negligence rule, which bars a person from recovering compensation if they bore any liability for the accident, regardless of the amount.
Some questions about North Carolina liability were settled in a major 2024 personal injury lawsuit verdict.
Here’s what happened:
On September 19, 2021, a woman stopped her vehicle at a mid-block crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross the road. The crosswalk was marked with paint on the ground, and a small “Pedestrian Here” sign, but there were no flashing lights, signals, or enhanced safety features. A driver approaching from behind did not notice that the vehicle was stopped, and they hit the woman’s car from the rear. The accident left her paralyzed from the mid-torso down.
The injured woman filed a lawsuit in Pitt County, which resulted in a $38.23 million jury verdict in 2024. Harris v. Glynn named the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as a third-party defendant because the plaintiff claimed that the crosswalk lacked the appropriate safety features. This is one of the largest personal injury verdicts in North Carolina’s history, especially for a roadway safety case.
What makes this verdict particularly important and noteworthy is that it wasn’t only about driver negligence; it recognized that dangerous road design or poor safety planning can be a legal basis for liability.
The plaintiff’s expert witnesses testified at trial that the crosswalk lacked advanced warnings, which violated the standard of care for roadway design and maintenance. If there had been flashing lights or beacons, then they would likely have caught the driver’s attention before the crash.
Government liability for roadway design
It’s not typical for a state transportation department to be liable for an accident case. Further, the NC Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) technically permits that crosswalk to have only painted markings and a sign. However, the jury sent a message: Meeting the minimum legal requirement is not always enough if there’s a safer and commonly used feasible alternative. Public agencies, like the NCDOT, are not automatically immune from accountability when they fail to address obvious safety risks.
Evidence presented at trial showed that while safety features were known and feasible, they were not installed at the site of the crash. The jury determined that this lack of safety measures contributed to the crash and the plaintiff’s severe injuries.
In other words, a key factor in the case wasn’t just the vehicle collision itself. It was the design and maintenance of the crosswalk environment. The jury found that those responsible for the roadway could have, and should have, done more to protect road users.
Impact of the lawsuit (beyond the crash)
The plaintiff suffered life-altering injuries that included future care costs estimated to be millions of dollars, along with medical expenses and special damages like past medical bills. As a victim of negligence, the plaintiff may recover compensation that includes pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, long-term care needs, and psychological impact. This comprehensive approach to damages is why serious injury cases often involve high awards.
But there’s another takeaway, too. Government agencies can be held responsible for negligent injuries. There’s often a misconception that state or local government entities are immune from lawsuits. While sovereign immunity protections do exist, they are not absolute. This is especially so when a failure to act results in harm. The jury’s verdict in this case demonstrates that public liability can be real and significant where negligence in roadway safety is clear.
Insurance alone might not cover the full cost of an injury. Sometimes, liability extends beyond the at-fault driver and encompasses agencies responsible for road design and safety. This landmark verdict is a reminder that road safety matters and accountability is real.
This case remains active on appeal, which means the legal questions it raises may continue to shape North Carolina negligence law.