Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

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:

In most Massachusetts personal injury cases, the injured party is free to pursue damages from the party that caused his or her harm, as long as certain procedural requirements are met. In cases in which the person that caused the alleged harm is an employee of the federal government, however, pursuing a claim can be more difficult, due to immunities provided to the government. There are waivers to the immunities set forth by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), that allow a plaintiff to pursue a claim.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently discussed the timeliness of a claim under the FTCA in a case in which the plaintiff sought damages from the United States of America due to the negligence of a government physician. If you live in Massachusetts and you or a loved one suffered harm due to the acts of an employee of the federal government, you should speak with a capable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the facts of your case.

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent treatment for amphetamine addiction in 2011. He successfully completed treatment and remained clean through July 2012. In August 2012, the plaintiff began treating with the defendant doctor, who is a government physician. The plaintiff’s medical records indicated he was recovering from an amphetamine addiction and plaintiff’s mother advised the defendant doctor of the plaintiff’s addiction. The defendant doctor nonetheless prescribed the plaintiff several amphetamine-based medications.

Published on:

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:

Under Massachusetts law, a party who is injured by someone else’s negligence typically has three years from the date of the injury to pursue a claim against the negligent party. In certain cases, however, such as when a person is injured on a public way, the law requires that the injured party provide notice of any potential claim to the allegedly negligent party in a much shorter time frame.

As shown in a recent case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the failure to provide notice of a claim for injuries arising from a defective way can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case, regardless of the cause of the delay. If you suffered harm due to an accident caused by a defective way, you should consult a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her foot while she was walking on a public way in Boston, due to a depression in the road. She provided notice of the claim to the city within thirty days, as required by G. L. c. 84, §§ 15 & 18, commonly referred to as the defective way statute. About three months later, the city sent a letter to the plaintiff denying liability and stating that the defendant gas company was the party responsible for the way in question. The plaintiff sent notice to the defendant gas company the following day and subsequently filed a lawsuit against both the city and the defendant gas company. The defendant gas company filed a motion to dismiss due to late notice, which the court denied. The case proceeded to trial. After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant gas company filed a motion for a directed verdict due to the late notice. The court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The adverse effects of smoking cigarettes are common knowledge. While currently cigarettes must be sold with warning labels, that was not always the case. As such, if someone began smoking decades ago and suffered harm as a result, he or she may be able to pursue claims against cigarette manufacturers on various theories of liability.

Notably, Massachusetts is a jurisdiction that allows such claims, as shown in a recent case in which the Superior Court of Massachusetts ruled that a plaintiff could proceed with its product liability claims against a cigarette manufacturer, denying the defendant manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to a dangerous product, you should meet with an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your options for pursuing compensation.

Plaintiff’s Decedent’s History of Smoking

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s mother began smoking the defendant’s cigarettes in 1963 when she was 13 years old after she was given free cigarettes by one of the defendant’s representatives. She became addicted to cigarettes and smoked two packs per day for decades. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 and ultimately succumbed to the disease. She smoked until her death. After the decedent’s death, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, and violation of G.L.c. 93A. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the court denied.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Many activities require participants to sign a release in which the participant waives the right to recover damages for any injuries sustained during the activity. As such, even if an entity’s negligence causes a participant harm, he or she may not be able to recover compensation. If a release is ambiguous, however, a person may still be able to pursue damages.

This was illustrated in a recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence claim, where the terms of the release were unclear. If you were injured due to someone else’s negligence, you should confer with a seasoned  Massachusetts personal injury attorney to formulate a plan to help you pursue compensation.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

 It is alleged that the plaintiff was a patron of one of the defendant’s yoga studios. She signed up for training classes, and prior to the classes signed a participation agreement and release of liability. During one training session, the plaintiff used a metal frame stackable chair. When the session was over, the plaintiff folded the chair, lifted it over her head, and carried it to the area of the room where the chairs were stacked. Allegedly, one of the defendant’s employees grabbed the chair without warning, which caused the chair to swing and strike the plaintiff in the head. The blow caused the plaintiff to sustain a concussion. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging she suffered damages due to the negligence of the defendant and its employees. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no negligence and the release precluded liability regardless. The court denied the defendant’s motion.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Individuals injured by the negligence of another person typically do not contemplate the procedural aspects of filing a lawsuit, but they are vital to consider because the failure to follow the rules of procedure can result in the waiver of your right to pursue a claim. For example, the court in which a lawsuit was filed must have jurisdiction over both the claim and the parties, or the case may be dismissed.

Recently, a Massachusetts appellate court examined the factors necessary to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant, in Roch v. Mollica. If you were injured by an individual that does not reside in the state, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the best manner in which to proceed in your pursuit of damages.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

Reportedly, the plaintiff attended college in Massachusetts and was a member of the school’s softball team. She traveled to Florida with the softball team and stayed at a house rented by the defendants, who were the parents of the head coach. While she was there the plaintiff was pushed into a swimming pool as part of a hazing ritual and sustained an injury to her shoulder. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendants for negligence. The defendants, who reside in New Hampshire, were served with process while attending a softball game in Massachusetts. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over them. The court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Under Massachusetts law, recovering damages from a government entity, while not impossible, is complicated and there are strict guidelines that must be followed in any claim asserted. While governmental entities are afforded certain immunities and defenses, as set forth in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, if a government entity fails to assert a defense in the required manner, it can result in the waiver of the defense. If you suffered an injury that was caused by the negligence of a governmental entity, you should consult a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible to assist you in your pursuit of damages.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Allegedly, the plaintiff was assaulted by a bus driver who worked for the defendant transportation authority. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of negligent hiring, training and supervision, and vicarious liability. The defendant filed an answer to the lawsuit, then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the plaintiff failed to sufficiently notify the defendant of the negligence claim as required under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the Act), and that it was immune to liability for the vicarious liability claim under the Act, due to the fact the liability was based on an intentional tort. The trial court granted the motion as to the vicarious liability claim, but denied it regarding the negligence claim, finding the defendant had waived the defense by failing to specifically assert the defense in its answer. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts took the case under review.

Published on:

If you suffer injuries in a slip and fall in a public area such as a hotel garage, it may not immediately be evident who is responsible for maintaining the portion of the premises in which you were injured. Massachusetts law permits you to pursue claims against all parties that may be potentially liable, and where it is unclear which party’s negligence caused your injury, it is left to the fact finder to determine liability.

Recently, in a case before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the court held that it was up to the jury to decide whether a hotel or a company that provided valet service for the hotel was responsible for injuries suffered by an individual who fell in the hotel parking lot. If you sustained an injury because of someone else’s negligent behavior, it is in your best interest to meet with an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your options for seeking compensation from the party that caused your harm.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

The plaintiff worked as a manager for a rental car company at a location in a Boston hotel. He was responsible for checking nine parking spots in the hotel’s garage. He was inspecting the spots in the spring of 2014 when he claimed that he tripped and fell on an uncovered drain hole in one of the parking spots. He sustained serious injuries in the fall.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Most personal injury claims assert a theory of liability based on negligence. Parties alleging negligence must prove a duty, a breach of the duty, and causation to recover on their claims. To show causation, a plaintiff must set forth sufficient evidence to show that the harm sustained was a foreseeable result of any alleged breach. In Almeida v. Pinto,  the Court of Appeals found that the tenuous connection between the injuries the plaintiff sustained and the defendant’s breach was insufficient to permit the plaintiff’s case to proceed.  If you suffered injuries due to someone else’s negligence, you should consult a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney to analyze the facts of your case and whether you should seek damages.

Factual Scenario

Allegedly the defendants hired a contractor to install vinyl siding on the second and third floor of their residence. The defendants paid the contractor $200.00 which was the price suggested by the contractor. The contractor began the installation without a helmet, harness, or any other safety equipment. He fell from a ladder and struck his head and ultimately passed away from his injuries. The plaintiff, who was the administrator of the contractor’s estate, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging their negligence led to the contractor’s death. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.