North Carolina Appeals Court Rules in Death Caused by Red Light Camera

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The North Carolina Appeals on Monday exonerated the owners of the red light camera that killed a twenty-four-year-old. The heavy device had fallen onto the Ford Mustang in which Elizabeth May was a passenger on May 17, 2007. May’s family sued the city of Fayetteville, where the camera was located, and Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that owns and operates the red light camera program.

The family argued that placing the camera in the median of the busy state highway 24 created a significant and avoidable danger because, had the red light camera not been there, May would still be alive. Prior to the accident, May had been doing shots at Secrets Cabaret with her friend, Danielle Polumbo. Polumbo and May got into the Mustang and at around 1am Polumbo misjudged the left-hand turn onto Sycamore Avenue and struck the pole. The red light camera tumbled onto and crushed the vehicle’s roof, taking May’s life.

Fayetteville’s attorneys argued that they were not responsible because the accident occurred on a state road. The three-judge appellate panel agreed.

“We affirm the trial court’s granting of the city’s summary judgment motion,” Chief Judge John C. Martin wrote in his decision. “First we note that the city owed plaintiffs no affirmative duty to keep N.C. 24 in a safe condition for plaintiffs’ decedent… Municipalities do not generally owe any duty to individuals injured on roads that are part of the state highway system.”

After an examination of the difference in contractual duties between the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Fayetteville, the court turned to the broader question of whether the city or the private contractor could be held liable given that May knew, or should have known, that she was putting herself in danger as passenger in a car with a driver who was obviously drunk.

“We hold, therefore, that, by voluntarily riding and continuing to ride with Ms. Polumbo under such circumstances and conditions as would have compelled an ordinarily prudent man in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety to not ride with the ‘appreciably impaired’ Ms. Polumbo, Ms. May committed an act of contributory negligence which proximately contributed to her injuries and death as a matter of law, and which bars any recovery from ACS or the city for her death,” Judge Martin concluded.

As a result the ruling, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the city and ACS. A copy of the decision is available in a 65k PDF file at the source link below.

Kennedy v. Polumbo (Court of Appeals, State of North Carolina, 2/1/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 14 comments
  • 50merc 50merc on Feb 03, 2011

    Jimal, it's an interesting story and it has to do with motoring. It's fine for TTAC. Be thankful you aren't being charged by the pixel.

    • See 3 previous
    • ChuckR ChuckR on Feb 03, 2011

      Steve65 has given a capsule summary that isn't inconsistent with the entry title. I don't see it as a non-story. If the camera hadn't been installed at the intersection, would the drunk have killed her friend by running into something else? Was the heavy device secured with enough of a margin of safety or was it installed defectively? If the driver hadn't been drunk, but still had an accident and the revenue-generating equipment still fell on the car, would you feel any different? Suppose a cash strapped state or municipality leased that space for a suspended advertisement sign, and suppose it came down like the Sword of Damocles and killed someone? What's your take on that? It's bad enough to have essential equipment swinging in the breeze. Non-essential crap shouldn't be added to the mix. These cameras fit that description.

  • LectroByte LectroByte on Feb 03, 2011

    if it had been your wife or daughter or cousin coming home from a night shift at the local hospital ER and had skidded off a wet rainy road at 6am and been killed by this camera, would you feel different about the lawsuit?

    • Steve65 Steve65 on Feb 04, 2011

      When you have no case, move the target. How about hypothetical aliens? If hypothetical green aliens in a flying saucer ray gunned the car into the sky, is NORAD responsible for failing to intercept them before they entered earth's atmosphere?

  • Dartdude The bottom line is that in the new America coming the elites don't want you and me to own cars. They are going to make building cars so expensive that the will only be for the very rich and connected. You will eat bugs and ride the bus and live in a 500sq-ft. apartment and like it. HUD wants to quit giving federal for any development for single family homes and don't be surprised that FHA aren't going to give loans for single family homes in the very near future.
  • FreedMike This is before Cadillac styling went full scale nutty...and not particularly attractive, in my opinion.
  • JTiberius1701 Middle of April here in NE Ohio. And that can still be shaky. Also on my Fiesta ST, I use Michelin Pilot Sport A/S tires for the winter and Bridgestone Potenza for my summer tires. No issues at all.
  • TCowner We've had a 64.5 Mustang in the family for the past 40 years. It is all original, Rangoon Red coupe with 289 (one of the first instead of the 260), Rally Pac, 4-speed, factory air, every option. Always gets smiles and thumbs ups.
  • ToolGuy This might be a good option for my spouse when it becomes available -- thought about reserving one but the $500 deposit is a little too serious. Oh sorry, that was the Volvo EX30, not the Mustang. Is Volvo part of Ford? Is the Mustang an EV? I'm so confused.
Next