Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp.
Decision Date | 07 September 2010 |
Docket Number | No. COA09-277.,COA09-277. |
Citation | 698 S.E.2d 424 |
Parties | Alicia Danielle MOSTELLER, Plaintiff,v.DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; and William Ray Walker, Defendants. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 4 December 2008 by Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 2009.
Brown, Moore & Associates, PLLC, Charlotte, by Jon R. Moore, for plaintiff-appellant.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Charlotte, by John W. Francisco, for defendant-appellee Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
Alicia Danielle Mosteller (“plaintiff”) was seriously injured when the car in which she was a passenger ran off of the roadway to avoid an oncoming vehicle and hit a utility pole located within the right of way. She filed a complaint alleging negligence against both defendant William Ray Walker, the driver, and defendant Duke Energy and negligence per se against defendant Duke Energy. The trial court dismissed her complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pled a claim for negligence or negligence per se as to defendant Duke Energy regarding the location and maintenance of the utility pole within the highway right of way. Even if the location of the utility pole was in violation of safety regulations administered by NC DOT, plaintiff has not alleged that NC DOT ever made any determination as to the proper location for the utility pole under the applicable regulations, so plaintiff's negligence per se claim fails. Because the negligence of defendant Walker was the intervening proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff's claims of ordinary negligence against Defendant Duke Energy also fail, so we affirm the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff's complaint, which must be “taken as true” on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Embree Constr. Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 330 N.C. 487, 490, 411 S.E.2d 916, 919-20 (1992), alleged that at approximately 7:07 p.m. on 13 February 2005, plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle operated by defendant William Ray Walker (“defendant Walker 1”) traveling southbound on Belmont-Mount Holly Road, between Interstate 85 and Woodlawn Road, in Belmont, North Carolina. Defendant Walker overreacted to an oncoming vehicle which came into his lane of travel, and he drove the vehicle off the right side of the road in a left curve, striking a utility pole (“the subject utility pole”) located in the right-of-way, approximately twelve-and-a-half feet off the right side of the paved roadway. Among other injuries, plaintiff sustained a fracture of her cervical spine resulting in quadriplegia.
Defendant Duke Energy Corporation and its subsidiary Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (“defendant Duke Energy” 2) owned, installed, and maintained the subject utility pole which defendant Walker's vehicle hit. Other vehicles had also hit the subject utility poles or its predecessor poles, including guide wires, during the eight years prior to 13 February 2005. Plaintiff's complaint incorporates accident reports from three prior automobile accidents involving the subject utility pole or predecessor poles, in 1997, 2001, and 2003. The subject utility pole was a replacement utility pole installed at the same location as the original pole within the same utility line running on the western side of Belmont-Mount Holly Road.
Plaintiff's complaint incorporated portions of various publications which address design standards for roadways, particularly as to the placement of utility structures within the right of way. For example, “A Guide for Accommodating Utilities on Highway Rights-of-Way,” published in 1970 by the American Association of State Highway Officials (“AASHO”) states that:
On and along conventional highways in rural areas poles and related facilities should be located at or as near as practical to the right-of-way line. As a minimum, the poles should be located outside the clear roadside area for the highway section involved. There is no single minimum dimension for the width of a clear roadside area but, where there is sufficient border space, 30 feet is commonly used as a design safety guide.
Language similar to the above guideline as recommended by AASHO in 1970 was used in “Policies and Procedures for Accommodating Utilities on Highway Rights of Way[,]” adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NC DOT”) Division of Highways in 1975 (“the 1975 NC DOT manual”). The 1975 NC DOT manual states that, “Poles and related facilities on and along conventional highways in rural areas shall be located at or as near as practical to the right-of-way line.”
Also incorporated into plaintiff's complaint is the affidavit of Gary Spangler, NC DOT District Engineer for the district which includes Gaston County, North Carolina. Mr. Spangler's affidavit states in pertinent part:
Mr. Spangler's affidavit goes on to state that Belmont-Mount Holly Road (SR-2093) in its current configuration was constructed pursuant to design drawing plans dated 2 May 1975 and the road was completed prior to 29 December 1977. The design drawing plans did not indicate the existence of a utility pole in the right-of-way along the western edge of Belmont-Mount Holly Road in the vicinity of the subject utility pole.
Plaintiff's complaint also incorporated the affidavit of J. O'Hara Parker, Assistant State Utility Agent for the NC DOT, which states in pertinent part:
6. Upon a diligent and thorough search by myself and a member of the Right-of-Way Department, there is no Encroachment Agreement or other application for encroachment on file in the Right-of-Way office at the [NC DOT] that relates to the placement of utilities by [defendant Duke Energy] in the right-of-way alongside SR-2093 between Interstate 85 and Woodlawn Road in Gaston County, North Carolina.
Plaintiff's complaint also incorporated the affidavit of Aydren Flowers, a former State Utility Agent for the NC DOT, which states in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swan Beach Corolla, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Currituck
...we must assume that the facts alleged by plaintiffs are true and liberally construe the complaint. Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp., 207 N.C.App. 1, 11, 698 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2010), disc. rev. denied,365 N.C. 211, 710 S.E.2d 38 (2011). The relevant allegations are as follows: In 1966, plaintif......
-
Kennedy v. Polumbo
...using the portion of the highway designated and intended for vehicular travel in a proper manner.” Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp., –––N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 698 S.E.2d 424, 446 (2010) (quoting Shapiro v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., 38 N.C.App. 658, 663, 248 S.E.2d 868, 871 (1978) (holding that th......
-
George v. Greyhound Lines Inc.
...a safety regulation ... may establish negligence per se in a civil trial in certain circumstances [,]” Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp., ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 698 S.E.2d 424, 432 (2010), the violation of a safety statute or regulation does not establish willful conduct per se. Instead, the......
-
Dafford v. Jp Steakhouse LLC, COA10-101
...appellants to conform the format and substance of their briefs to our Rules."); Mosteller v. Duke Energy Corp., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 698 S.E.2d 424, 430 (2010) ("We agree with defendant that portions of plaintiff's statement of the facts in her brief violate N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5), in t......