The N.C. Court of Appeals has ruled that a lawsuit against the city of Winston-Salem involving the death of a 7-year-old boy killed while riding his bicycle can go forward.
The mother of Joshua Palomares-Beckles sued Michael Andrew Logan Jr., the city of Winston-Salem, Flow Cos. and a neighborhood homeowner, Norman Moore, in 2007 alleging that their negligence led to Joshua's death on May 20, 2006.
Flow and Moore settled in 2008.
In a hearing in December 2008, the city asked Judge Jerry Cash Martin in Forsyth Superior Court for a summary judgment in the case, essentially asking the judge to rule in the city's favor without a trial.
Martin denied the request, and the city appealed. In a decision released yesterday, a three-member panel of the appellate court agreed unanimously that Martin ruled correctly.
Jim Morgan, an attorney for the city, declined to comment on the decision.
Logan was driving on the wrong side of Wells Street to avoid cars parked on the other side of the road when he struck Joshua at the intersection of Wells and Freeman Street. Joshua was dragged under Logan's sport utility vehicle and later died from his injuries.
In March 2007, Logan pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, felony death by motor vehicle and driving while impaired. He was sentenced to 18 to 22 months in prison and was released in August 2008, according to records from the N.C. Department of Correction.
Joshua's mother, Hayluri Beckles-Palomares, sued Flow, Moore and the city, arguing that conditions on the street, including cars that were parked on the road and vegetation that blocked the view of traffic and road signs, contributed to her son's death.
Under terms that were kept secret, Flow and Moore settled without admitting fault. A Flow dealership had been accused of illegally parking cars along Wells, restricting sight lines and contributing to the accident. Moore had been accused of not trimming bushes next to his property, obstructing the view.
The city, the lawsuit argues, violated safety statutes and municipal ordinances regulating the maintenance of its streets, obstructions to vision and traffic, and parking regulations.
The city argued that it should be granted governmental immunity from the claims of the lawsuit, and that it was protected through the public-duty doctrine, which holds that a municipality acts on behalf of the entire public, and therefore should not be held liable for failing to protect specific individuals.
The court determined that neither of those arguments bar Beckles-Palomares from pursuing her case.
"The family is pleased with the decision," said Walter Holton, an attorney representing Beckles-Palomares. "What it says is that cities have to take responsibility for its streets."
The case has been scheduled for trial May 24, Holton said.
pgarber@wsjournal.com
727-7327
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement