NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Five attorneys at the Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown firm have been certified by the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission to be mediators in civil lawsuits. A mediator, such as the certified mediators at our firm, serves as a facilitator, focusing parties' discussions as to how they might settle their dispute. A mediator does not force the parties to settle, but he or she helps steer negotiations between the parties in an effort to compromise their claims and defenses so as to lead to a settlement of the lawsuit and hence avoid the uncertainty of a trial. Most civil lawsuits filed in North Carolina Superior Courts are required to have a mediated settlement conference. If a mediation is not successful, the mediator will report an “impasse” to the Court and the case will proceed to trial. A mediation is a confidential process, and except for several rare and rule-allowed situations, a mediator will not discuss what occurred at mediation with a judge or jury.

Parties to a lawsuit are allowed to select the mediator for their case, and so if you are in need of a mediator, you should consider utilizing the services of our certified mediators, because with their extensive experience as civil litigation attorneys, they bring with them as mediators the insight to help all sides of a dispute seek an acceptable compromise resolution.

Attorneys Who Are Certified Mediators:

Legal Decisions of Interest

  • Plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix of a decedent’s estate the day after her complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had run related back to the filing of the summons and therefore her wrongful death claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Tallman v. City of Gastonia, No. COA08-1021 (N.C. App. Sept. 15, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Punitive damages upheld when Court believed there was sufficient evidence that defendant’s restaurant manager’s conduct was willful and wanton based upon his conduct toward plaintiff at the restaurant. Everhart v. O’Charley’s Inc., No. COA08-1454 (N.C. App. Oct. 6, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff (representative of deceased employee) failed in her burden of forecasting evidence that a parent company affirmatively undertook to provide a safe working environment at the parent company’s subsidiary plant, beyond concern or minimal contact about safety matters, and the parent company did not assume primary responsibility for industrial safety at the subsidiary’s plant.  Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc., No. COA09-247 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff allowed to pursue claim to have “corporate veil” pierced of defendant company so that the obligation on a note by individual owning 99% of the stock of the defendant company could be satisfied from assets of defendant company, even though the company did not participate in the making of the note giving rise to the owner’s obligation. Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Catawba Development Corp., No. COA08-1407 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Homeowners Association did not owe to a minor who was struck while riding his bike by a vehicular driver a legal duty to maintain the foliage in the common area of the housing subdivision. Fairbanks v. Brewington, No. COA09-237 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she tripped over an end table at a hospital, and she presented no evidence that her attention was diverted as she was walking. Snow v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, No. COA09-189 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the Complaint was not frivolous based upon the facts and the law, but because Plaintiff had a history of filing frivolous pleadings in general and against Defendant in particular, the trial court could conclude that Plaintiff filed the Complaint for an improper purpose. Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, No. COA08-1508 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the plaintiff mother alleged that the city was negligent by failing to comply with safety statutes and city ordinances regulating the maintenance of city streets, obstructions to vision and traffic, and parking regulations, and she did not seek to recover damages for the death of her child based on a law enforcement agency's failure to exercise its general duty to protect the public, she was not barred by the public duty doctrine.  Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • The improvement-to-real-property statute of repose does not apply to a claim against a city for failing to maintain its streets because a city has the duty to exercise a continuing supervision over its streets in order that it may know their condition and it is held to have knowledge of a defect which such inspection would have disclosed to it. Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Office Location

Phone:
336.282.8848
Fax:
336.282.8409
3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410
NC Personal Injury Lawyers