Articles Posted in Legal Strategies

Published on:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

In most cases, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Massachusetts. When the harm alleged is reportedly caused by a defect in a roadway, however, the injured party is required to provide notice to the government or quasi-government entity that is responsible for the roadway within thirty days of the accident. Recently, in a case arising out of harm caused by a defect in a roadway, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the thirty day notice requirement did not apply to private entities, including utility companies. If you were suffered harm in an accident caused by a defect in a street or road it is in your best interest to meet with a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your case and what you must do to preserve your right to pursue damages.

Facts Regarding the Subject Accident

Allegedly, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a public road when he struck a utility cover that was not aligned with the surface of the road and sustained injuries. The plaintiff notified the city in which the road was located of his injuries within thirty days. On the thirty-first day after his accident, the city notified the plaintiff that it would not pay his claim, because the defendant utility company was responsible for the utility cover. The plaintiff subsequently notified the defendant of his injuries, and filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s negligence caused his harm. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was precluded due to his failure to notify the defendant of his injuries within thirty days as required by the Massachusetts road defect and notice statues. The court granted the defendant’s motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Road Defect and Notice Statute  

On appeal, the court noted that the Massachusetts road defect statute imposes liability for personal injuries caused by defects in roads. The notice statute requires a party injured by a road defect to provide the city, town, or county that is obligated to maintain and repair the road with notice of the injury within thirty days. The court stated that while the road defect and notice statutes clearly imposed an obligation on a party injured by a road defect to notify the government entity charged with repairing the road within thirty days, it was not clear whether the injured party was required to provide notice to a private entity that was responsible for the road. The court ultimately concluded that the legislature did not intend to displace an injured party’s common law remedy against private parties who responsible for defects in the road. Thus, the court reversed the trial court ruling and reinstated the plaintiff’s claim.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It is commonly understood that parties harmed due to someone else’s negligence must pursue their claim within the time frame set forth by the applicable statute of limitations, otherwise they waive the right to recover. In certain instances, a statute of limitations can be tolled, such as in cases where an illness or defect could not have been discovered within the time permitted. In other cases, a statute of repose applies and strictly limits the time frame in which a case can be pursued.

Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the six-year statute of repose for tort actions arising out of improvements to real property related operated to eliminate all claims after the applicable period has run, even if the cause of action was not discoverable within that time frame. If you suffered harm due to exposure to a dangerous chemical or product you should meet with an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the facts of your case and your potential claim for compensation.

Alleged Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

Reportedly, the defendant manufactured and sold turbine generators and directed that asbestos be used in the installation of the generators. The defendant also supervised the installations. The plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos during the installation of the generators in two different power plants, which were constructed between 1971 and 1978. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015 and subsequently sued the defendant, alleging the defendant negligently exposed the him to asbestos during the construction of the plants. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the six-year statute of repose for tort actions arising out of any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, administration, or construction of any improvement to real property. The district court stated that it was unclear whether the statue applied to cases involving diseases with extended latency periods and certified the question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It is commonly understood that the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act provides that if a person is injured at work and recovers workers’ compensation benefits from his or her employer, the injured party’s acceptance of benefits will act as a release, preventing the injured party from pursuing any further claims from the employer arising out of the incident. However, the injured party is not precluded from pursuing personal injury claims from other parties who may be liable.

A Massachusetts appellate court recently analyzed whether an injured party’s release of his employer via a workers’ compensation claim prevented a non-employer defendant from joining the employer as an additional defendant and alleging the employer was liable for the injured party’s harm. If you were injured while working, you may be able to recover damages from parties other than your employer, and you should speak with a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the facts of your case and to develop a plan for seeking damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Employment

Reportedly, the plaintiff was hired by the employer to perform construction work. The defendant contracting company subsequently hired the employer to work as a subcontractor at a home owned by the owner of the defendant contracting company. During the course of construction, the plaintiff fell in an unguarded area and suffered severe injuries. He received workers’ compensation benefits from the employer, after which he filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant contracting company. The defendant filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint but subsequently sought leave to amend the answer to add the employer as an additional defendant. The defendant wished to assert claims of breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and indemnification against the employer. The court denied the defendant’s request for leave, after which the defendant appealed.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Massachusetts personal injury cases alleging a breach of duty, it is common for one or both parties to engage expert witnesses, to offer an opinion regarding whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, and whether the breach of any duty resulted in harm to the plaintiff. The testimony of expert witnesses can be precluded or limited if the court finds that the expert has a conflict of interest or has insufficient qualifications to opine on a certain issue.

In a recent case, Kahyaoglu v. Adams, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that if a party fails to request a hearing to establish the reliability of expert testimony, he or she waives to right to object on that issue, affirming Commonwealth v. Fritz. If you sustained personal injuries because of someone else’s negligent actions, it is important to retain a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to prevent expert testimony that should be precluded from being used as evidence against you.

Factual Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff alleged she suffered personal injuries due to the defendant’s negligence in exiting his vehicle. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the defendant. The Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff filed a pro se appeal of both the jury verdict and the denial of her motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Massachusetts personal injury law, to recover from a negligence claim you must show that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to you and that the breach caused you to suffer injuries. It is important to understand what must be proven in order to establish negligence, because a failure to prove the elements of negligence can affect your right to recover. In Caruso v. Catone, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently held that Plaintiff’s attorney waived the right to argue the judge gave improper instructions to the jury regarding breach of duty and causation, which ultimately resulted in a defense verdict.

In Caruso, plaintiff and defendant were involved in an accident in which defendant struck plaintiff with his car. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence. Following a trial, a jury determined Plaintiff had not established the element of negligence and denied plaintiff the right to recover damages. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. Plaintiff then appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the lower court ruling. On appeal, plaintiff argued that defendant’s testimony at trial constituted an admission that he breached the duty of care. Specifically, defendant, who hit plaintiff when he was making a left turn, testified that he was looking right prior to the turn, even though he was driving toward the left. Further, defendant agreed with plaintiff’s counsel that he was not looking in the direction he was driving at the time of impact. Plaintiff believed defendant’s behavior constituted negligence as a matter of law.

The court found, however, that it was not necessary to address the issue of whether defendant acted negligently, due to the fact that the judge improperly addressed the jury on the issue of negligence. Specifically, in instructing the jury on the elements of negligence the judge conflated the elements of breach and causation and erroneously advised the jury that to find defendant negligent they must find that he breached the duty of care and that the breach was the cause of the accident. The court noted this was not a proper instruction under Massachusetts law, which requires breach and causation to be separate elements of negligence. As plaintiff’s attorney did not object to the instruction he waived the right to argue the issue on appeal. The court stated that due to the improper instruction the jury’s verdict may mean the jury found that the defendant drove negligently, but the accident may have occurred even if he was driving appropriately. The court noted, however, the record reflected that the accident would have occurred regardless, due to other facts regarding the incident.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Under Massachusetts law, hearsay is not admissible testimony at a trial. There are exceptions to this rule, however, which allow certain testimony that is considered hearsay to be admitted. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently held in Hasouris v. Sorour, a medical malpractice action, that a witness’s deposition testimony can be used at a trial under the prior recorded testimony to the rule against hearsay, due to the witness’s refusal to testify. If you or a loved one suffered injuries due to medical malpractice, you should retain a personal injury attorney seasoned in handling Massachusetts medical malpractice cases to pursue your claim, to ensure all relevant testimony and evidence that will support your case is obtained and preserved.

In Hasouris, Plaintiff sued Defendants for medical malpractice and wrongful death, alleging negligent medical care provided by physicians during Plaintiff’s wife’s knee replacement surgery, which resulted in pain and suffering and Plaintiff’s wife’s ultimate death. A Doctor involved in Plaintiff’s wife’s care was deposed. The Doctor was then indicted for Medicare fraud. Doctor filed a motion to stay and bifurcate the trial and set forth his intent not to testify at the trial by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. His motion was denied. A Second Doctor filed a notice of his intent to use Doctor’s deposition testimony at trial, due to Doctor’s unavailability, arguing that it fell under the prior recorded testimony exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay. Doctor settled prior to trial, and stated he would not appear at the trial. The judge advised the parties if Doctor did not appear at trial he would admit Doctor’s deposition testimony. Plaintiff made objections to certain portions of the deposition transcript, which were sustained in part. A jury found in favor of Second Doctor, and Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. The judge denied Plaintiff’s motion and Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued the judge erred in admitting Doctor’s deposition testimony. The court noted the trial court judge relied on the exception to the rule against hearsay that permitted prior recorded testimony of a witness that is unavailable to be admitted into evidence. The court noted that the issue in the subject case was whether the witness was truly unavailable due to his refusal to testify by invoking his right against self-incrimination. The court noted a witness asserting the right against self-incrimination cannot be forced to testify unless it can be proven the testimony will not be incriminating. In analyzing whether the testimony sought will be incriminating, the court must consider what information will be sought and whether the answers may incriminate the witness. This inquiry was not done in the subject case but the court found the invocation of the right to be valid regardless. Further, the court noted that the deposition testimony was admissible under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, because Doctor’s attendance could not be procured for the trial, due to his refusal to comply with a subpoena to attend. As such, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Continue reading →