• https://packinsider.com/2024/12/12/nc-state-wr-dacari-collins-re-signs-with-savage-wolves-for-2025/ 
• https://247sports.com/college/north-carolina-state/article/nc-state-wr-dacari-collins-announces-return-for-2025-season-241971415/ 

Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler represents athletes, businesses, and institutions in the sports industry, including in contract negotiations, disputes, and litigation matters.  Rob Rader and Jason Miller, both North Carolina licensed attorneys and registered athlete agents, spearhead MMHP’s sports law practice.  For more information, please visit: https://millermonroelaw.com/practice-areas/sports-law/

The post Rader Assists NC State WR Dacari Collins in Return for 2025 Season appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Brantmeier played the No. 1 position for the Tar Heels’ 2023 National Championship winning women’s tennis team and is currently the lead plaintiff in the ongoing federal lawsuit against the NCAA challenging its prohibition on student-athletes’ acceptance of prize money earned in non-NCAA events, such as the US Open Tennis Championships and the US Open Golf Championships, among others.  Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler (with Joel Lulla, of counsel) and Milberg represent Brantmeier in the litigation.

Brantmeier competed in the 2021 US Open Tennis Championships, earning prize money through her performance, but was prohibited from retaining most of it under longstanding and outdated NCAA rules.  Even then, the NCAA objected to certain tournament expenses submitted by Brantmeier, including her mother’s share of uber rides and hotel costs, which she was permitted reimbursement through prize money earned.  After forcing her to miss the first semester of her freshman year, the NCAA eventually certified Brantmeier’s eligibility in January 2023.  In March of 2024, Brantmeier filed a federal antitrust class action lawsuit against the NCAA seeking to strike down such prize money restrictions.

“For both her tennis prowess and legal courage, Brantmeier claims the top spot in the Triangle Ten, the News & Observer’s annual list of the most influential people in Triangle sports.”

Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler represents athletes, businesses, and institutions in the sports industry, including in contract negotiations, disputes, and litigation matters.  Rob Rader and Jason Miller, both North Carolina licensed attorneys and registered athlete agents, spearhead MMHP’s sports law practice.  For more information, please visit: https://millermonroelaw.com/practice-areas/sports-law/

The post Reese Brantmeier Named Most Influential Person in Triangle Sports in 2024 appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

It is important to remember that dog bite incidents do not always involve adults.  In fact, the majority of dog bite victims in recent years were children.  Children can be especially vulnerable as they are less likely to recognize or react to a dangerous dog, and they are far more likely to be severely injured if attacked.

Many different questions regarding rights, recovery, and liability arise in the aftermath of a dog attack, both for the dog owner and the victim.  Although laws concerning dogs and dog attacks vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, North Carolina has traditionally adhered to a “one-bite rule.”  A dog owner will generally not be liable for injuries caused by their dog unless the dog was known to be dangerous.  Once a dog has bit or attacked causing injury without provocation, it will be considered a dangerous dog moving forward—ergo, the one-bite rule.

This rule is codified in North Carolina General Statute § 67-4.1, which defines a “dangerous dog” as one that:

1. Without provocation has killed or inflicted injury resulting in broken bones, disfiguring lacerations, cosmetic surgery, or hospitalization; or
2. Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the owner’s real property; or
3. Approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack; or
4. Is trained, owned, or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting.

If a dog is considered dangerous under the statute, the owner is held strictly liable for any subsequent bites, attacks, or damage inflicted upon a person, his property, or another animal.  In addition, owners of dangerous dogs are required to take special precautions to prevent any future incidents.  North Carolina General Statute § 67-4.2 makes it unlawful for the owner of a dangerous dog to leave said dog unattended on his property unless it is confined indoors or securely restrained.  In addition, it is unlawful for the owner to permit a dangerous dog to go beyond his property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled.

At Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler, our attorneys have experience litigating difficult cases involving dog attacks.  We have the experience necessary to help you determine whether or not you were attacked by a “dangerous dog” as defined under North Carolina law.  If you have been attacked, please call today to schedule a consultation.

The post North Carolina Dangerous Dog Law appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

• On April 6, 2018, the North Carolina Supreme Court, by unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Martin, reversed the N.C. Court of Appeals. (See addendum below for summary of Supreme Court opinion.)

In City of Asheville v. Frost, (COA16-577, filed May 2, 2017), the North Carolina Court of Appeals wrestles with an ambiguous law passed by the General Assembly.  On its face, the law grants only one party (“the petitioner”) the right to demand a jury trial, while denying the opposing party (“the respondent”) that right.  The decision of the Court of Appeals hinges on statutory construction.  The opinion makes no mention of any constitutional challenge to the law.

The Facts

Asheville Police Officer Robert Frost (“Frost”) was fired for allegedly using excessive force when arresting a woman for trespassing.  He appealed his termination to the Civil Service Board of the City of Asheville (“the Board”).  The Board concluded that his termination was unjustified.  The Board recommended that Frost be reinstated with back pay and benefits.

The City disagreed with the Board’s decision and filed a petition for trial de novo in Buncombe County Superior Court.  The City did not request a trial by jury.  Frost demanded a jury trial in his response to the petition.  The City moved to strike Frost’s demand for a jury trial on the grounds that only “the petitioner” is authorized to request a trial by jury, under Asheville Civil Service Law, 1953 N.C. Session Laws Chapter 747, as amended by 2009 N.C. Session Law Chapter 401 (“the Act”).

The Act

The pertinent part of the Act, which is entitled “An act to revise the laws relating to the Asheville Civil Service Board,” provides as follows:

“Within ten days of the receipt of notice of the decision of the Board, either party may appeal to the Superior Court Division of the General Court of Justice for Buncombe County for a trial de novo.  The appeal shall be effected by filing with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Buncombe County a petition for trial in superior court, setting out the fact upon which the petitioner relies for relief.  If the petitioner desires a trial by jury, the petition shall so state. . . . Therefore, the matter shall proceed to trial as any other civil action.”  (emphasis added).

The Holding

The trial court denied the City’s motion to strike Frost’s demand for a jury trial.  It reasoned that because the Act directs that “the matter shall proceed to trial as any other civil action,” Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure controls.  Rule 38 allows any party to demand a jury trial.  The City appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals.  In a divided opinion, a three judge panel reversed the trial court.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss Frost’s request for a jury trial.

Foundation of Statutory Interpretation

Judge Wanda Bryant, in the majority opinion, states that“[s]tatutory interpretation begins with the plain meaning of the words of the statute.  Where the plain meaning of the statute is clear, no further analysis is required.  Where the plain meaning is unclear, legislative intent controls.” (p. 8, citing Sharpe v. Worland, 137 N.C. App. 82, 85, 527 S.E. 2d 75, 77 (2000).

Ejusdem Generis  (“of the same kind”)

The majority opinion applies the doctrine of ejusem generis.  The rule of statutory construction ejusem generis provides:

“Where general words follow a designation of particular subjects or things, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as, restricted by the particular designations and as including only things of the same kind, character and nature as those specifically enumerated.”  Id, at 8, citing

Knight v. Town of Knightdale, 164 N.C. App. 766, 769, 596 S.E. 2d 881, 884 (2004).

The majority opinion held that the section of the Act that specifically provides that the petitioner is the only party that can demand a jury trial trumps the section of the Act that provides that the case “shall proceed to trial as any other civil action.”

The Absurdity Canon

The concurring and dissenting opinions reach opposite conclusions about whether the majority’s interpretation of the Act leads to absurd results.  The absurdity canon applies “where the plain language of the statute would lead to patently absurd consequences” that the legislature “could not possibly have intended.”  at p. 13, citing Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 470 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).

Judge Richard Dietz, in his concurring opinion, exercises judicial restraint by characterizing the Act, which allows only the losing side to request a jury trial, as “unusual.”  In a damning assessment of the legislature’s work product, Judge Dietz concludes that a right to demand a jury trial enjoyed by one litigant, but not enjoyed by the opposing litigant “is something the General Assembly certainly could have intended.” (p. 2 of concurring opinion) (emphasis in original).

Judge Robert N. Hunter, for his part, gives the legislature more credit.  In his dissenting opinion, Judge Hunter concludes that the General Assembly could not possibly have intended the result reached by the majority.  The dissent points out that the majority’s interpretation of the Act “creates an incentive for a party to lose its proceeding in front of the Board.”  It notes, “[i]n order for a party to qualify as a petitioner, and have the right to a jury trial, a party must first lose before the Board.” (p. 6 of dissenting opinion).

The absurdity canon, as set forth in the dissent, provides that “[w]hen a literal interpretation of statutory language yields absurd results, however, or contravenes clearly expressed legislative intent, ‘the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.’” (p. 4 of dissenting opinion, citing AVCO Financial Services v. Isbell, 67 N.C. App. 341, 343, 312 S.E. 2d 707, 708 (1984), quoting State v. Barksdale, 181 N.C. 621, 625, 107 S.E. 505, 507 (1921).  The dissent would affirm the trial court’s order denying the City’s motion to strike Frost’s demand for a jury trial.

On April 6, 2018, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the N.C. Court of Appeals.  Chief Justice Martin’s unanimous decision notes that Section 8(g) of the Asheville Civil Service Law allows “either party” to appeal an Asheville Civil Service Board decision and “the matter shall proceed to trial as any other civil action.”  Consequently, 8(g) incorporates Rule 38(b) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, “any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury.” (emphasis in original).  Because 8(g) grants a right to a trial by jury, the Supreme Court held that both the respondent and the petitioner from an Asheville Civil Service Board decision may demand a jury trial in Superior Court.

The post Two Statutory Construction Principles at Issue in N.C. Court of Appeals’ Decision appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

DWI Cases – Unique Cases 

Personal injury and wrongful death cases that involve drunk driving (driving while impaired) are a unique subcategory of personal injury/wrongful death cases.  Drunk drivers do not enjoy certain protections under the civil laws that law-abiding citizens enjoy.  For example, in the typical tort case, the victim may only recover compensatory damages against the defendant.  In a case where the defendant was driving while impaired, the victim may recover both compensatory damages and punitive damages.  (See explanation of difference in compensatory and punitive damages below).  Furthermore, there is no cap on the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded in a DWI case, as opposed to non-DWI cases where punitive damages are capped at three times the amount of compensatory damages or two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), whichever is greater.  N.C.G.S. 1D-25(b); 1D-26.   Also, a judgment debtor can discharge most types of civil judgments in bankruptcy.  However, when the debt represents a judgment arising from a DWI, the judgment cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.  11 U.S.C. 523(a)(9).

Compensatory Damages Where Victim Survives

Compensatory damages compensate a victim for the damages sustained by the victim.  Compensatory damages include medical expenses incurred (past and future); lost income (past and future); physical pain and emotional suffering (past and future); permanent injury or scarring, and loss of use of a body part.

Compensatory Damages Where Victim Is Killed

If someone is killed by a drunk driver, the compensatory damages recoverable under the North Carolina Wrongful Death Act, N.C.G.S. 28A-18-2 et seq., are set forth in N.C.G.S. 28A-18-2(b).  It provides,

Damages recoverable for death by wrongful act include:

• Expenses for care, treatment and hospitalization incident to the injury resulting in death;
• Compensation for pain and suffering of the decedent;
• The reasonable funeral expenses of the decedent;
• The present monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, including but not limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected;

1. Net income of the decedent,
2. Services, protection, care and assistance of the decedent, whether voluntary or obligatory, to the persons entitled to the damages recovered,
3. Society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the damages recovered.

Punitive Damages Also May Be Recovered

Punitive damages (also referred to as exemplary damages) may also be recovered by the victim.  Where the victim is killed, punitive damages may be recovered by the family of the decedent.  N.C.G.S. 28A-18-2(b)(5).  Punitive damages are imposed for the purpose of punishing the impaired driver and deterring the impaired driver and others from driving impaired in the future.  Though punitive damages may be imposed upon an impaired driver, punitive damages may not be imposed upon the estate of an impaired driver.  See, Harrell v. Bowen, 362 N.C. 142, 655 S.E. 2d 350 (2008).  Consequently, when an impaired driver dies in a collision, his estate typically will not be subject to punitive damages for the reckless conduct of the deceased driver.  However, family members or other parties may be subject to punitive damages for their own reckless conduct.

Prospective Defendants in a DWI Case

In every civil case involving driving while impaired, potential claims against multiple parties should be investigated and evaluated.  Potential defendants include the impaired driver, the owner of the vehicle driven by the impaired driver, family members of the impaired driver, the employer of the impaired driver, legal entities and individuals that provided or sold alcoholic beverages to the impaired driver, social hosts that provided alcoholic beverages to the impaired driver, and legal entities and individuals that aided or abetted the impaired driver in some way.  With respect to each prospective defendant, the existence of liability insurance and policy coverage limits must be determined.

Locating the Right Attorney

When a family member has been seriously injured or killed by an impaired driver, the primary focus of the family typically is on the injured or deceased person.  It may be difficult to think about pursuing a civil case soon after such a traumatic event.  However, because investigative steps need to be undertaken as early as possible, the search for an attorney should not be delayed any longer than necessary.

Finding an experienced attorney who specializes in this type of case, who is aggressive but also is ethical, and who is the right fit personality-wise and temperament-wise, is critical.  A good way to find such an attorney is to contact an attorney in your community who you know and trust.  That attorney can then give you the names of one or more attorneys who specialize in this type of case.

Do your online research about the recommended attorney or attorneys, and then make contact and schedule a meeting.  Bring a trusted family member or friend with you to the meeting if you feel the need for assistance.  It is best not to make a decision about an attorney at the first meeting.  If the attorney pressures you in any way to sign a contract at the first meeting, consider this a red flag.  The decision is too important to be rushed.  Discuss your impressions with other family members and friends and make sure you are comfortable with the attorney.  Do not discuss the facts of the case with others.  All communications with the attorney must remain confidential.

Think about your decision for a day or two.  If you are convinced that the attorney is the right fit for you, let the attorney know this.  A contingent fee contract and other relevant documents can then be executed.

The Relationship Between The Criminal DWI Homicide Case And The Civil Wrongful Death Case

Contacting The District Attorney

A drunk driver who kills someone may be charged with multiple criminal offenses, including second degree murder.  The local district attorney prosecutes the criminal case and protects the interest of the state.  The private attorney retained by the administrator or executor of the decedent’s estate prosecutes the civil wrongful death case and protects the interest of the decedent’s family. The interests of the state and the family usually are aligned fairly closely.   However, there are times when those interests may diverge.  It is important to have an experienced attorney on board to advocate for the family.

The attorney representing the family must recognize that the district attorney is in charge of the criminal case and must stay out of the way of the district attorney.   This said, most experienced district attorneys give great deference to the wishes of the decedent’s family in deciding the appropriate disposition of the criminal case.  But when push comes to shove, the district attorney (along with the judge) calls the shots in the criminal case.  The family’s attorney should facilitate communication between the district attorney and the family to make sure the family’s interest is protected.

A good working relationship between the district attorney, the investigating officers, and the family’s attorney is critical to the successful prosecution of the civil case.  Most law enforcement agencies have specially trained investigators and accident reconstruction experts assigned to investigate vehicular homicide cases.  These officers and experts gather, document, and preserve the evidence.  They are key witnesses in the criminal case.  They also are key witnesses in the civil wrongful death case.

One of the first steps the family’s attorney must take after being retained by the family is to contact the district attorney to notify him or her of the attorney’s involvement.  In a DWI homicide case, the investigating officers typically will not speak with a private attorney about the case without prior authorization from the district attorney.  Most district attorneys and assistant district attorneys want to cooperate with the family’s attorney.  They know that the family is devastated by the senseless death of their loved one, and they want to do everything possible to help the family succeed in the civil action, provided the cooperation does not compromise the criminal prosecution in any way.

The district attorney must trust the family’s attorney to use good judgment in how and when to use the information and documentation from the criminal investigation.  If there is no trust, the district attorney will provide very little information.

Preparation Before Meeting With Investigating Officer

The family’s attorney will attempt to complete some basic investigation of the case before he or she meets with the investigating officer for the first time.

Sometimes all of this documentation is not available before meeting with the officer, but often it is.

Ideally, the preliminary steps undertaken prior to meeting with the investigative officer will include the following:

• Obtain copy of the collision report
• Interview witnesses listed on the collision report
• Interview other witnesses you learn about from clients and listed witnesses
• Review all insurance policies to which you have access that may provide coverage
• Go to the scene of the collision
• Photograph the scene of the collision
• Download Google photos and maps of the scene
• Obtain certified copies of every document in the criminal file from the clerk’s office, including the bond and conditions of release
• Obtain a certified copy of the defendant’s driving record from DMV
• Obtain a copy of the defendant’s criminal record
• Obtain a copy of the 911 tape
• Search and download all news accounts of the collision
• Download pattern jury instructions for all potential claims
• Examine the vehicles involved in the collision
• Download and preserve all social media information for the drunk driver, the family of the drunk driver, the victim and his family, and all prospective defendants
• Instruct clients to cease posting on social media and explain to clients that postings on social media often wind up being admitted as evidence in court proceedings
• Have an engineer examine the electronic data recorder from the vehicles, photograph the vehicles, document the scene of the collision

Meeting With The Investigating Officer

Once the district attorney gives the family’s attorney the green light to meet with the investigating officers, the attorney will arrange a meeting with the officers.  The investigation may still be in the early stage, with officers waiting for lab results and autopsy results.  Even though to may be early in the investigation, it is best to go ahead and meet with the officer.

Before meeting with the officer, the attorney will have already obtained copies of the documentation publicly available, as well as information and documentation produced by the family.  The attorney can review this information and documentation with the officers.  The attorney may even be able to assist the officers by providing some information.

The procedure for obtaining documentation from the officers and the district attorney will vary depending on the jurisdiction and the level of trust and cooperation between those officials and the family’s attorney.  Ideally, full access to all documentation to the family’s attorney will be provided at some point.  This documentation, as well as information from experts hired by the attorney, is critical to the attorney’s investigation of the potential direct claims against the impaired driver, or his estate.  This documentation is also critical to the attorney’s investigation of the potential claims against the other prospective parties to be included as defendants in a civil action.

The post The Impact of Drunk Driving in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.