 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Riddick v. Myers12/29/1998
esident involved in an automobile accident in this State by virtue of the operation of a vehicle in North Carolina, the purpose of the statute is to provide "` urisdiction over the driver who inflicted the injury . . . .'"
Hargett v. Reed, 95 N.C. App. 292, 296, 382 S.E.2d 791, 792 (1989) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
In the instant case, we have the opposite scenario than the one contemplated in the statute. Here, North Carolina plaintiff Riddick has been adjudicated by the Virginia court to be the one at fault. North Carolina case law provides that, since nonresident Myers did not inflict the injury , N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 1-105 is not available to obtain personal jurisdiction over him. See Hart, 241 N.C. at 391, 85 S.E.2d at 320; Hargett, 95 N.C. App. at 296, 382 S.E.2d at 792.
Plaintiff Riddick is merely attempting to ask the trial court to declare that North Carolina law applies to this motor vehicle accident. However, Riddick can more properly make this same argument to the Virginia court, which has personal jurisdiction over Myers. Thus, the trial court was correct in concluding that North Carolina courts lack personal jurisdiction over Myers.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is
Affirmed.
Judges GREENE and LEWIS concur.
|