COVID-19 Update: We are open and fully operating. Click here to see how we are serving and protecting our clients.
NEW COVID-19 Cases: If you have been affected by COVID-19, call or email us to discuss your legal rights.

Articles Posted in Legal Strategies

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, when a person dies in an accident, the person’s estate will often seek damages from the parties that may have caused the events leading up to the person’s death. Simply because an accident occurred does not necessarily mean that a party will be deemed liable, however. This was shown in a recent case in which the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s wrongful death claims due to his failure to establish that the defendant owed any duty to the deceased person. If you lost a loved one in an accident caused by another party’s reckless acts, it is prudent to speak to a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what you must prove to recover damages.

Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent was hit by a car when he was walking in the street, and subsequently died from his injuries. The facts demonstrated that he entered the street because the sidewalk that was adjacent to the roadway was impassable due to an accumulation of snow and ice. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple defendants, including the owners of the property that was next to the subject sidewalk. The defendant property owners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing they did not have a duty to maintain a publicly owned sidewalk. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Duty to Maintain Sidewalks in Massachusetts

Upon reviewing the facts of the case, the appellate court noted that it was undisputed that the sidewalk was owned by the city in which it was located and not by the defendant property owners, and that it was a public walkway. Nonetheless, the plaintiff argued the defendant had a duty to refrain from causing dangerous conditions on the sidewalk and that it breached the duty by allowing the accumulation of snow to exist on the sidewalk. The appellate court found that this was insufficient to form the basis of a claim against the defendant.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

While most negligence cases are ultimately resolved based upon the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, some cases are dismissed on procedural grounds. Even if a person’s claims are dismissed due to the failure to comply with the statutory rules, however, relief may be available via a motion to vacate in some circumstances, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts negligence case. If you were harmed by another party’s reckless acts, it is critical to retain an accomplished Massachusetts personal injury attorney who will fight to help you protect your rights.

Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant condominium association following an accident in which she sustained injuries. The plaintiff’s claims were ultimately dismissed via a judgment from the court. The plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the defendant opposed. The court granted the motion, however, and the defendant appealed.

Vacating a Judgment Dismissing a Claim

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules) allow a party to move to vacate a judgment if certain parameters are met. Specifically, a judgment may be vacated due to excusable neglect, mistake or inadvertence, or because of newly discovered evidence. It may also be overturned due to fraud or misrepresentation, or because it is void or has been discharged. Finally, the Rules allow for a court to vacate a judgment for any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment. An appellate court will not set aside a trial court ruling on a motion to vacate absent an abuse of discretion.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is not uncommon for a business to hire a company to clean and perform maintenance on the business premises. In such instances, a dispute may arise as to which party is liable if a person subsequently suffers injuries in a slip and fall accident caused by an improperly cleaned spill. This was illustrated in a recent slip and fall case in Massachusetts, in which the court ultimately ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements needed to prove the liability of the third-party cleaning company. If you suffered injuries in a slip and fall accident, it is advisable to discuss your harm with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess whether you may be able to pursue claims for damages.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant grocery store when she slipped and fell on a puddle, which caused her to sustain injuries. The puddle was caused by melted ice that was bagged and given to customers to keep perishable items cold. The plaintiff saw a child drop a bag of ice, which created the puddle, prior to her fall. She also observed an employee of the defendant grocery store attempting to clean up the puddle.

Allegedly, the defendant grocery store contracted with the defendant cleaner to clean the premises and provide maintenance services, including cleaning up spills. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against both defendants, alleging negligence claims. The defendant cleaner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, it could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, entities that offer means of transportation to the public are known as common carriers. In addition to the general duty of reasonable care imposed on most companies and individuals, the law imposes a duty on common carriers to provide safe transportation for their passengers. As such, if a person is injured while traveling with a common carrier, it may be deemed liable for the person’s harm. Recently, a Massachusetts court addressed the question of whether a company that uses ridesharing applications to connect drivers and passengers is considered a common carrier and, if so, whether it can be held liable for harm caused by drivers using its application. If you were hurt while using a ridesharing service, you may be able to recover damages and should meet with a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff used the defendant company’s ridesharing application to hire the defendant driver to transport her to her home in Massachusetts. Instead of taking her home, however, the defendant driver drove the plaintiff to a secluded parking lot where he raped her. The defendant driver was subsequently charged with rape but absconded to another country prior to his criminal trial. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit, alleging negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and vicarious liability claims against the defendant company, and assault and battery, and other claims against the defendant driver. The defendant company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that it was not a common carrier and could not be deemed liable for the acts of the driver.

Common Carrier Liability in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, common carriers are companies that operate any motor vehicle on public roads for the transportation of passengers who choose to purchase the carrier’s services. The goal of common carriers is to provide an affordable means of transportation. Thus, common carriers are obligated by law to provide safe transport for their passengers. The Massachusetts courts have found that this duty includes protecting passengers from harm caused by the intentional torts that are committed by the carrier’s own agents.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is not uncommon for doctors to use products like mesh or artificial joints when operating on patients. While these products should be safe, they often are not, and their defects can lead to significant injuries. People hurt by dangerous products can often recover damages from the manufacturers that developed them, though, via product liability lawsuits. In a recent Massachusetts opinion, a court explained the minimum factual allegations needed to permit a plaintiff to pursue product liability claims against a manufacturer in a case involving surgical mesh. If you were hurt by a defective product, it is advisable to meet with a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure during which a mesh patch manufactured by the defendant was implanted in him. Over time, the patch migrated and deteriorated and perforated the plaintiff’s large intestine. The plaintiff then developed sigmoid diverticulitis and an abscess and infection. He then filed a product liability lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, and strict liability failure to warn. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court ultimately granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Factual Allegations Sufficient to Sustain Product Liability Claims

In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must treat all well-pleaded facts as correct and draw any reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must set forth factual allegations sufficient to state a claim for relief that, on its face, is plausible.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

If a person sustains injuries at work, he or she may be able to pursue benefits from his or her employer via a workers’ compensation claim. While in some cases a person may be able to seek damages through a personal injury lawsuit instead of a workers’ compensation claim, if the harm arose out the person’s employment, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (MCWA) provides the person’s sole remedy. Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts analyzed whether the intentional acts of a supervisor that harmed an employee were considered incidental to the employee’s employment, so as to bar a personal injury claim. If you suffered harm at work, it is in your best interest to speak with a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss what damages you may be owed.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a mechanic. The plaintiff’s work schedule changed, after which the plaintiff’s supervisor began subjecting the plaintiff to a hostile work environment. Specifically, the plaintiff was harassed for his religious beliefs, denied accommodations, and accosted after he took a picture of the supervisor smoking, which was prohibited.

Reportedly, the plaintiff began experiencing symptoms of fatigue. He was restricted from working temporarily, but when he returned to work, the harassment continued. The plaintiff was then terminated, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his civil rights. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the MCWA.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When a person is injured by a national corporation, pursuing damages against the corporation can be complicated. For example, the injured person must show that the court can exercise jurisdiction over the corporation and that the corporation can be held liable under the claims asserted, otherwise the injured person’s claims may fail. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which a plaintiff sought to hold a national drug company responsible for harm caused by a contrast agent administered during an MRI. If you sustained injuries due to the negligence of a corporation, it is prudent to meet with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an MRI, during which he was given an injection of a gadolinium-based contrast agent, that was manufactured by the defendant. Following the MRI, the plaintiff suffered gadolinium retention in several organs, which caused him to suffer emotional and physical injuries. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant failed to warn the patient adequately of the risks associated with gadolinium. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The court granted the defendant’s motion but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over an Out of State Corporation

A court can exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In the subject case, the plaintiff conceded that the court did not have general personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the court’s analysis focused on whether specific personal jurisdiction could properly be exercised over the defendant.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, even if a party obtains a successful verdict at trial, the other side has the right to appeal. As with all civil pleadings, however, if a party fails to file a notice of appeal within the time required by law, it may result in a dismissal of the appeal. In a recent personal injury case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the court explained what constitutes excusable neglect that would permit a party to file a late notice of appeal. If you suffered personal injuries due to someone else’s negligence, it is in your best interest to meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney adept at helping injured parties recover compensation to discuss your case.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered hip injuries while working at a site owned by the defendant.  He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The court denied the motion. Pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure, the defendant had thirty days to file a notice of appeal. The defendant did not file a notice, however, until eight days after the deadline had passed. The court permitted the late notice of appeal, after which the plaintiff appealed the order allowing late notice.

Excusable Neglect Permitting Late Filing

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party appealing a civil case is required to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of when the court enters a judgment or order denying a motion for a new trial. If a party misses this deadline, the court can only permit a motion for leave to file a late notice of an appeal if the party demonstrates excusable neglect. Excusable neglect is only meant to apply in extraordinary or unique circumstances, and not merely a delay caused by everyday oversight. Rather, excusable neglect should only be a valid explanation when it is required to remedy emergency situations.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The law affords injured individuals the right to pursue claims against the person or entity that caused their harm, in a jurisdiction of their choosing. While in many cases a plaintiff’s jurisdictional choice will remain undisturbed, a plaintiff does not have an absolute right to dictate where an action will be heard. Rather, in cases where the defendant argues that jurisdiction is improper, the plaintiff must establish that the court can validly exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Recently that United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts analyzed whether jurisdiction over an out of state defendant was proper under the Massachusetts long-arm statute, in a case in which the defendant was an out of state corporation. If you were injured by a company that is based in another state, you should consult a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the appropriate manner in which to pursue damages for your harm.

Facts of the Accident

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who is a resident of Massachusetts, was vacationing in Florida, at a resort owned by the defendant, when she was injured in a scooter accident. The defendant does not own or lease any property in Massachusetts or have any offices or employees in Massachusetts and is not registered as a foreign corporation in Massachusetts. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Massachusetts Long-Arm Statute

The Massachusetts long-arm statute, Mass. Gen. L. c. 223A, § 3, permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a person or company who directly or indirectly conducts business in Massachusetts if the alleged cause of action arises out of the business conducted in Massachusetts. The first prong of the long-arm statute can be met by showing the defendant engaged in the purposeful solicitation of business from the residents of Massachusetts, while the second prong requires a plaintiff to show that “but for” such solicitation, she or he would not have suffered harm.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, property owners are expected to maintain their property in a relatively safe condition. The duties imposed on property owners apply regardless of whether the owner is an individual or business. Even if the injured party can prove he or she was injured on a person or entity’s property, however, the injured party may be denied damages if an exception to the general rule applies. For example, as discussed in a recent case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, under certain circumstances a property owner that permits people to use its property for recreational purposes can avoid liability. If you suffered injuries in a recreational facility it is prudent to meet with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the circumstances under which you were injured and your potential claims for pursuing damages.

Factual Background of the Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff was at the defendant indoor sports facility, watching her son play dek hockey. When she was leaving the bleachers after the game, she fell and suffered a torn ligament in her knee. She sued the defendant, alleging that it negligently failed to properly secure the bleachers. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was insulated from liability by G.L. c 21, § 17C, which is known as the recreational use statute. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, dismissing the case. The plaintiff appealed.

Immunity Under the Recreational Use Statute

Under the recreational use statute, landowners are protected from liability for negligence claims brought by people who suffered injuries while using the land for recreational purposes with no charge. In the subject case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff did not pay a fee to use the defendant’s facilities. The plaintiff argued, however, that she paid an indirect fee for the use of the defendant facility, through payments made to her son’s dek hockey league to allow him to play in the defendant facility.

Continue reading →