Rutherford County, NC — January 31, 2026, Brandon Atkins was killed and three people were injured in a motor grader accident at about 7:40 p.m. on U.S. Route 74.

Authorities said a Chevrolet pickup was heading east near the Ellenboro exit when it crashed into a motor grader removing snow from the highway. The plow vehicle, which was contracted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for snow removal, was partially in the right lane at the time of the crash.

Chevrolet driver Brandon Atkins, 55, of Forest City was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash, according to authorities.

Three passengers in the pickup were hospitalized with serious injuries after the crash, authorities said.

Authorities have not released any additional information about the Rutherford County crash at this time.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When people read about a crash like this, the first questions are simple: Why was a large piece of equipment in a travel lane? Was it visible? And who was responsible for making sure drivers could see it in time to react? Right now, those questions don’t have answers, and that’s a problem.

What we do know is limited. A pickup struck a motor grader that was removing snow and was partially in the right lane of U.S. Route 74. That single detail raises several important legal questions, but it doesn’t answer them. It’s not clear whether the grader was stopped or moving. It’s not clear how long it had been in that position. And it’s not clear what warnings, if any, were in place to alert approaching traffic.

Any time roadway equipment is operating in live traffic, especially at night and during winter conditions, visibility becomes central. We don’t yet know if the motor grader had proper lighting, reflective markings or advance warning vehicles. We also don’t know whether traffic control measures were required under the contract with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, or whether those requirements were followed.

Another unanswered question is speed and reaction time. Was the pickup traveling at or near the speed limit? Was there enough distance to perceive and respond to the grader’s position in the lane? That’s not guesswork; it’s something investigators can determine using scene measurements, vehicle damage and data from the pickup’s engine control module, if available.

Because this was a contracted snow removal operation, responsibility may extend beyond the operator alone. Depending on the facts, accountability could involve the contractor, supervisory personnel or policies governing how and where equipment is allowed to operate during active traffic. Those answers come from contracts, training records, operating manuals and communications logs, not assumptions.

What concerns me most is how little information has been released. When a crash involves heavy equipment working on an active highway, the public deserves clear answers about how safety was managed and whether proper procedures were followed. That only happens through an independent investigation that looks past the surface facts and focuses on evidence.

Key Takeaways

• A vehicle being “partially in the lane” raises serious questions about visibility and traffic control.
• It’s not yet clear whether the motor grader was moving, stopped or properly marked.
• Contracted roadway work can involve multiple layers of responsibility, not just one operator.
• Data, documents, and on-site evidence, not early statements, are what determine accountability.