Drunk Driver Causes Fatal Accident
Thomas Henson, along with David Stradley of the firm of White and Stradley, jointly represented two adult children whose mom was tragically killed when a drunk driver crossed the center line and hit her car head-on. Their mom survived the initial impact and suffered significantly before passing away on the way to the hospital. The owner of the defendant’s car was also a passenger and had authorized the defendant to drive while intoxicated. Of particular note is that this same owner had let this same driver operate her car while intoxicated in a prior incident in 2016, as shown by prior arrest documentation. The co-defendants each had their own lawyer during the litigation process and during trial, and mediation was unsuccessful. The trial team introduced evidence at trial that the defendant driver was legally drunk, that the defendant owner knew or should have known that the defendant driver was intoxicated and thus could not safely operate a vehicle, and of the incredible loss to Susan’s family, including her two adult children and grandchild. The verdict represents the largest drunk driving verdict in the state of North Carolina to date.
After the verdict, the defendants appealed to the NC Court of Appeals, claiming that the Defendant Owner should not have been held liable for negligent entrustment and that the verdict itself was excessive. David Stradley handled the oral argument at the Court of Appeals. He did a masterful job outlining the legal principles and the public policy arguments for the trial result, and the 3 judge panel, comprised of two Republicans and one Democrat, upheld the verdict, noting in particular that: “evidence showed that Defendants’ conduct was “reprehensib[le,]” as the conduct involved drunk driving and allowing one obviously impaired to drive; that there was a “likelihood . . . of serious harm”; that Defendants had an “awareness of the probable consequences of [their] conduct,” based on the 2016 drunk driving incident and a common sense understanding that one should not drive while impaired; that Defendants had engaged in “similar past conduct” based on the 2016 incident; that “the duration of [Defendants’] conduct was not momentary, but rather, they had been drinking for several hours prior to driving; that “[t]he actual damages suffered” by the Plaintiff were high, as she lost her life; and that Defendant Owner “conceal[ed]” her culpability by never admitting she bore any blame.” The defendants have appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the appeal is ongoing.