Location: Raleigh, North Carolina (Hybrid Position: Remote and In-Person)

Position Type: Paid Part-Time Legal Extern (6-10 hours per week; flexible on days and times)

Company: Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler, Attorneys at Law

Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler, a boutique litigation firm located in Raleigh, North Carolina, is actively seeking a motivated and detail-oriented individual to join our team as an extern with our land condemnation and eminent domain practice group. This position offers a unique opportunity to work closely with our skilled attorneys and contribute to the growth and expansion of our land condemnation practice. It would be well suited for a college or law student who seeks a part-time, flexible position during the semester.

Role and Responsibilities:

As an extern with the firm, you will play a vital role in supporting our legal team in the intricate area of land condemnation and eminent domain matters. Your responsibilities will include:

• Working with attorneys and staff to target public works projects and identify publicly available information needed to develop potential clients and prepare cases.
• Assisting attorneys with data collection, data entry, and content creation related to land condemnation cases.
• Utilizing Excel and other tools for efficient data management.
• Collaborating on digital marketing initiatives to promote our land condemnation practice.
• Participating in both remote and in-person tasks as necessary, maintaining a flexible work arrangement.
• Providing assistance in developing legal marketing strategies and digital media content.
• Engaging in tasks that support the overall growth and success of the land condemnation practice.

Qualifications:

• Interest in real property law, land condemnation, eminent domain, legal marketing, and digital media.
• Strong proficiency in Excel, data collection, data entry, and content creation.
• Excellent attention to detail and a meticulous approach to tasks.
• Honest, hardworking, and reliable with a strong sense of timeliness.
• Self-motivated and capable of working independently while also being a team player.
• Interest in supporting the growth of land condemnation and eminent domain practice.

About Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler:

At Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler, we pride ourselves on our unwavering commitment to high-quality representation, competitive fees, and community engagement. Our attorneys have extensive experience in various industries, allowing us to provide tailored legal advice that aligns with our clients’ specific business needs.

Our land condemnation practice, led by partner Will Smith, offers a unique advantage with his 8 years of experience both inside the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and representing the NCDOT in court. This insider’s perspective allows us to provide clients with informed counsel and effective guidance throughout the condemnation process.

Why Join Us:

• Collaborate with experienced attorneys and professionals in a boutique litigation firm.
• Contribute to the growth and development of our specialized land condemnation practice.
• Engage in meaningful work that impacts property owners’ rights and legal outcomes.
• Gain exposure to real property law, client acquisition strategies, practice building and development, legal marketing, and digital media strategies.
• Enjoy a flexible hybrid work environment that respects your time and commitments.

If you are passionate about legal support, dedicated to excellence, and eager to contribute to the expansion of a dynamic land condemnation and eminent domain practice, we invite you to apply.

How to Apply:

To apply for the position, please submit your resume and a brief cover letter outlining your relevant skills and interests to wsmith@millermonroe.com.

Learn More About Us: Visit our main site at https://millermonroelaw.com/ to learn more about our firm and the impactful work we do.

The post Legal Extern Opportunity with MMHP appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Will Smith, head of the firm’s Eminent Domain and Land Condemnation Practice, is a featured author in the January 2023 edition of “Attorney At Law” Magazine.  Will’s article, titled “Practical Insights on Early-Stage Eminent Domain Cases,” provides lessons to other attorneys that Will learned during his eight years working in state government and representing the NCDOT in eminent domain matters.

The insights in the article are also useful to any owner whose property is being affected by government action, especially those property owners who have received a “Notice of Project” or been contacted by a right-of-way agent for a transportation project.

The piece can be read here:  Will’s Article

Should you have any questions regarding an eminent domain or condemnation issue, Will can be reached at wsmith@millermonroe.com or 919-341-3774

The post Will Smith Published in “Attorney at Law” Magazine appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Miller Monroe & Plyer is pleased to announce that it obtained a $4.9M settlement on behalf of a girl with a non-verbal form of autism and her family in January of 2022.  This verdict was highlighted publicly for the first time in the November 21, 2022, edition of Lawyers Weekly.

In 2016, the 15-year-old girl was placed in an unlicensed alternative family living home and suffered life-threatening injuries at the hands of her caregivers, resulting in the child being hospitalized for eight weeks and undergoing multiple surgeries.  MMHP pursued multiple claims on behalf of the girl and her family in two actions – one in state court and one in federal court.  The state action included claims against the local management entity (“LME”) and three provider agencies.  The federal action included six claims – five claims alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and one claim alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which were asserted against the LME that made the placement and seven of the LME’s employees.

Attorneys Jeff Monroe, William Plyler, and Jason Miller represented the plaintiff, with support throughout the six-year representation by paralegal Jennifer Garvey.

Click to Read Full Article: “Autistic girl, family awarded $4.9M settlement after abuse.”

The post Jeffrey R. Monroe Leads Team in Obtaining $4.9M Settlement for Girl with Autism appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

To view the full article, please click here: Wake County Bar’s Online Newsletter

The post William Plyler, 2022 Branch Professionalism Award Winner appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler is pleased to announce that five firm attorneys were selected by their peers as members of North Carolina Super Lawyers and Rising Stars for 2022.

The MMHP attorneys recognized include:

Business Litigation
Jason Miller
Paul Flick

Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Litigation
Jeff Monroe
William Plyler

Plaintiff’s Civil Litigation, Rising Star
John Holton

MMHP is a boutique litigation firm focusing on business and personal injury litigation.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. For more information about the Super Lawyers methodology, visit http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html.

The post Five Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Business North Carolina magazine honors Tar Heel lawyers by publishing Business North Carolina’s Legal Elite, a listing of the State’s top lawyers in business-related categories. Winners are chosen not by the magazine’s editors, but by the state’s lawyers. In developing the list, Business North Carolina made ballots available to more than 20,000 Tar Heel Lawyers and only 3% were selected for Legal Elite.

Jason A. Miller has litigation experience in state and federal courts throughout North Carolina and beyond.  He has represented Fortune 500 companies in complex business litigation matters, builders and developers in real property disputes, information technology companies in trade secrets disputes, partners in closely-held company disputes, investors in business deals gone awry, and dozens of cases in between.  Mr. Miller has litigated matters in more than a dozen counties in North Carolina and is licensed to practice in every state and federal court in North Carolina.  Mr. Miller is also licensed to practice law in the state of New York.

Jeffrey R. Monroe has a broad litigation practice with a focus on fiduciary disputes and personal injury claims.  He often represents individuals in will caveat actions, estate disputes, and cases involving mismanagement of funds entrusted to a guardian, trustee, administrator, or other fiduciary.  Mr. Monroe also has extensive experience litigating business disputes, construction disputes, and a variety of other civil litigation matters.

The post Miller and Monroe Selected 2021 Legal Elite 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.

We love following local bloggers who regularly post statistics about growth trends and new developments in Raleigh.  One such post can be found here.  Happy Friday, and enjoy some of these exciting events downtown this weekend.

The post A Firm Rooted in Raleigh appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

The post Jenn Garvey has the MMHP team ready for the solar eclipse! appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.

Personal Injury Liability – Principles of Law

By William Plyler

Personal Injury: Liability

There are two parts to a personal injury claim – liability and damages.  Both parts must be proven in order for an injured person to recover.   This article focuses on the issue of liability.  The legal basis for liability in most personal injury cases is negligence.

The law that applies in almost every negligence case in North Carolina is set forth in the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions.  The Pattern Jury Instructions constitute the law that North Carolina trial judges read to juries to guide juries in their deliberations.  The terminology of the pattern jury instructions can be stilted and legalistic; however, it constitutes the black letter law that applies in most cases.  Consequently, this article tracks the language of the pattern instructions in order to provide the reader with the most accurate account of the law in North Carolina.

Negligence and Negligence Per Se

Negligence refers to a person’s failure to follow a duty of conduct imposed by law.  Every person is under a duty to use ordinary care to protect himself and others from injury.  Ordinary care means that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances to protect himself and others from injury.  N.C.P.I. MV 102.11, citing Pinyan v. Settle, 263 N.C. 578, 139 S.E. 2d 863 (1965); Barnes v. Caulbourne, 240 N.C. 721, 83 S.E. 2d 898 (1954); Williamson v. Clay, 243 N.C. 337, 90 E.E. 2d 727 (1956).  Every person is also under a duty to follow standards of conduct enacted as laws for the safety of the public.  A standard of conduct established by a safety statute must be followed.  A person’s failure to do so is negligence in and of itself – negligence per se.  N.C.P.I. Civil 102.12.

Proximate Cause

A plaintiff in a personal injury case not only must prove that the defendant was negligent, but also that the negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.  Proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous sequence produces a person’s injury, and is a cause which a reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would probably produce such injury or some similar injurious result.  N.C.P.I. Civil 102.19, citing Loftis v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 219, 609 S.E. 2d 481 (2005).  There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury.  Therefore, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury.  Rather, the plaintiff must prove only that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.  Id. 

Burden of Proof: Greater Weight of the Evidence

Another important principle of law that applies in negligence cases (as well as every other type of case) is the burden of proof.  The easiest way to explain burden of proof is to relate it to the manner in which juries do their work.  Juries decide cases by answering questions, called issues.  The issues are set forth on a verdict sheet that the trial judge gives the jury right before the jury begins its deliberations.

In most negligence cases, the first issue the jury will be asked to decide is “Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant?”  The trial judge typically will instruct the jury about the burden of proof as follows.

“In this case you will be called upon to answer questions – also called issues.  As I discuss each issue I will tell you which party has the burden of proof.  The party having that burden is required to prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, the existence of those facts which entitle that party to a favorable answer to the issue.

The greater weight of the evidence does not refer to the quantity of the evidence, but rather to the quality and convincing force of the evidence.  It means that you must be persuaded, considering all of the evidence, that the necessary facts are more likely than not to exist.

If you are so persuaded, it would be your duty to answer the issue in favor of the party with the burden of proof.  If you are not so persuaded, it would be your duty to answer the issue against the party with the burden of proof.”  N.C.P.I. Civil 101.10.

The trial judge will then instruct the jury that the plaintiff has the burden of proof with respect to the first issue.  In some negligence cases, a favorable decision for the plaintiff on this first issue constitutes a resolution of the liability question in the plaintiff’s favor.  In these cases, the jury then proceeds to answer the damage issue.  However, in some negligence cases, this is not the case.  In some negligence cases, the defendant asserts the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.  If contributory negligence is alleged, the question of liability remains unresolved until the contributory negligence issue also is answered in the plaintiff’s favor.

Contributory Negligence

If the first liability issue is resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the jury will proceed to answer the second liability issue (the contributory negligence issue).  This issue typically reads as follows:  “Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury?”  N.C.P.I. Civil 104.10.  On this issue, the burden of proof is on the defendant.  This means that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s own injury.  The test for what constitutes negligence is the same as previously described and is the same for the plaintiff as for the defendant.  If the plaintiff’s negligence joins with the negligence of the defendant in proximately causing the plaintiff’s injury, it is called contributory negligence and the plaintiff cannot recover (unless the defendant was grossly negligent, or unless the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident).  N.C. P.I. Civil 104.10.

Willful or Wanton Conduct (Gross Negligence) – Used to Defeat Contributory Negligence

In cases where there is evidence of willful and wanton conduct by the defendant, the plaintiff may be able to recover even if the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.   In such cases, this issue typically will appear as the third issue on the verdict sheet submitted to the jury.  This issue typically reads as follows:  “Was the plaintiff injured by willful or wanton conduct of the defendant?”  N.C.P.I. Civil 102.86.  The jury reaches this issue only if it already has answered the first issue as to the defendant’s negligence “yes” in favor of the plaintiff and the second issue as to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence “yes” in favor of the defendant.

On this third issue, the issue of the defendant’s willful or wanton conduct, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.  This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the defendant engaged in willful or wanton conduct and that such conduct was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

An act is willful if the defendant intentionally fails to carry out some duty imposed by law or contract which is necessary to protect the safety of the person or property to which is it owed.  N.C.P.I. Civil 102.86, citing Abernathy v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 321 N.C. 236, 362 S.E. 2d 559 (1987).

An act is wanton if the defendant acts in conscious and intentional disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of others.  N.C.P.I. Civil 102.86, citing Yancy v. Lea, 354 N.C. 48, 54, 550 S.E. 2d 155, 158 (2001) ( Hinson v. Dawson, 244 N.C. 23, 28, 92 S.E. 2d 393, 397 (1956)); cf. Bullins v. Schmidt, 322 N.C. 580, 369 S.E. 2d 601 (1988) (defining gross negligence as wanton conduct done with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others).

Last Clear Chance – Used to Defeat Contributory Negligence

Another circumstance where the plaintiff may recover, even where the plaintiff was contributorily negligence, is where the exception called the Last Clear Chance Doctrine applies.  In cases where the evidence supports submission of this issue to the jury, the issue typically is submitted as follows:  “Did the defendant have the last clear chance to avoid the plaintiff’s injury?”  N.C.P.I. MV 105.15.  This issue, when applicable, typically will be the third liability issue, and will follow the contributory negligence issue.

On the last clear chance issue, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.  This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, the following four things:

First, that the plaintiff negligently placed himself in a position of peril from which he could not escape by the exercise of reasonable care.

Second, that the defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, the plaintiff’s position of peril and inability to escape from it.

Third, that the defendant had the time and means to avoid injury to the plaintiff and failed to exercise reasonable care to do so.

And Fourth, that such failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.  N.C.P.I. MV 105.15.

This article does not establish an attorney-client relationship and must not be construed as legal advice.

The post Understanding liability basics: A handbook of negligence claims, defenses, and burdens of proof. appeared first on Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler.