Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Published on:

By

In most instances, when a person suffers harm because of another party’s negligence, the victim may pursue damages. In certain cases, however, regardless of whether a party acted negligently, the injured person may not be able to recover compensation because the negligent party is immune from liability. For example, under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the Act), public employers are exempt from liability in certain circumstances. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts analyzed whether the Act protects a public employer from liability for inadequate staffing, in a case arising out of a train accident. If you were injured due to the negligence of a person or entity, it is prudent to meet with a capable Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff fell off a platform at a train station. A train owned by the defendant transportation authority subsequently struck the plaintiff, and he suffered serious injuries. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing in part that the defendant negligently failed to staff the station with a customer service agent or a safety inspector on the day of the plaintiff’s accident. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Act. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Public Employer Immunity Under the Act

Under the Act, a public employer is immune from all claims that arise out of the performance or exercise of a discretionary duty or function, or the failure to exercise such a duty or function. In the subject case, the plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the defendant was a public employer as defined by the Act. Thus, the issue analyzed by the court was whether it was within the defendant’s discretion to determine which course of conduct to undertake and, if so, whether it was the kind of discretion for which the Act provided immunity. The court stated that if a regulation, statute, or established practice dictates a party must take a certain course of action, a defendant’s behavior will not be protected by the discretionary function exception of the Act.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pharmacists owe a duty to their customers to ensure that prescriptions are accurately filled and that any relevant health information, such as allergies, is considered prior to dispensing medication. If a pharmacist negligently fails to heed a warning in a customer’s health history that a certain medication is contraindicated, and dispenses the medication to the customer regardless, the pharmacy may be liable for any harm the customer suffers. The customer must prove that the harm was the result of the pharmacist’s negligence, however, and as shown in a recent case, if the customer fails to do so his or her claim may be dismissed. If you sustained harm because of a pharmacist’s negligence you should speak with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding what you must prove to recover compensation for your injuries.

Factual Background of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited his physician due to a head cold. He was prescribed a quinolone antibiotic, which he took to the defendant drugstore to have filed. Although there was nothing in the prescribing physician’s records indicating the plaintiff had a quinoline allergy, there was a “hardstop” warning in the defendant pharmacist’s database that the plaintiff was allergic to quinolones. Upon investigation, however, the pharmacist on duty found notes stating that plaintiff had previously been prescribed quinolines and that he denied having a quinoline allergy on numerous occasions. As such, the pharmacist decided to dispense the antibiotic to the plaintiff.

It is alleged that the plaintiff ultimately suffered an allergic reaction to the drug. Additionally, he alleged in caused him to suffer Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a serious skin disorder. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the pharmacy alleging, claims of negligence, product liability, and unfair trade practices. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and a motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying. The court granted the defendant’s motion and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Property owners have a duty to keep their property reasonably safe for those that enter the property, and they can be held liable for harm caused when they breach their duty. While the majority of premises liability claims arise out of slip and fall accidents, a property owner can be held liable for other dangerous conditions that cause a person harm. There are limits to the liability, however, as discussed in a recent case ruled on by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, in a case in which a shooting victim brought a premises liability claim against the operators of the housing development where the shooting occurred. If you were injured on another person’s property it is prudent to meet with a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the facts out of which your harm arose and whether you may be able to recover damages.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent was standing on a public sidewalk when she was shot in a drive-by shooting. The decedent was paralyzed as a result of the shooting and ultimately died from her injuries. The plaintiff, decedent’s estate, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, who were the entities that owned the housing development that was adjacent to where the victim was shot. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate security in the area and failed to warn the decedent of the dangers present in that area. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

A Property Owner’s Duty to Prevent Harm

In order to succeed on a negligence claim in Massachusetts, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of a duty. whether a duty exists is a question of law, resolved by referring to prevailing social values and customs and public policy. The duty imposed on property owners is the duty of reasonable care towards all people who are lawfully on the premises. In some cases, the duty can extend to protecting people lawfully on the property from criminal acts of third parties. A landowner only has a duty to protect a person from the criminal acts of other people if there is a special relationship between the landowner and the person.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Massachusetts, government entities and agencies can be held liable for negligence under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (Act). There are certain exceptions to the Act, however, that insulate municipalities and public employees from liability. A Massachusetts appellate court recently discussed when a municipality may be held liable for harm caused by negligent acts, in a case in which a bystander was injured during a police investigation. If you were injured by a person working for a government entity or municipality it is essential to speak with a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding the facts surrounding your harm and what damages you may be able to pursue.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was having a conversation on the sidewalk with her sister and her sister’s boyfriend, when they were approached by three police officers. The officers were responding to a 911 call made by the plaintiff’s sister, due to a domestic dispute with the boyfriend. One of the officers grabbed the boyfriend from behind and began to conduct a pat down and frisk the boyfriend. The boyfriend pulled a gun out of his pants and began shooting at the officers. The officers returned gunfire and subsequently fatally shot the boyfriend. During the exchange of gunfire, the plaintiff was shot in the leg by the boyfriend.

Reportedly, the plaintiff sued the defendant city, alleging a claim of negligence. The case proceeded to trial. Following the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. At the close of the evidence the defendant renewed its motion, which was again denied. The jury awarded the plaintiff $253,391.73, which was reduced to $100,000 pursuant to the Act. The defendant then filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court denied. The defendant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If a person is harmed by a defective product, he or she can pursue a claim for damages from the manufacturer of the product. Even if you can prove a product is defective, however, you prove that the court can validly exercise jurisdiction over the manufacturer to recover compensation. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently discussed the requirements for exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident company, in a case in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured at work by a defective container. If you suffered harm due to a defective product you should meet with a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what damages you may be able to pursue.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff, who lives in Massachusetts, worked at a chemical manufacturing company owned by the defendant employer. In January 2016, while the plaintiff was working, a defective container exploded, causing a fire. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of the explosion. He subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim, and then filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants, including the manufacturer of the defective container. The defendant manufacturer moved the case to federal court, and then filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review, the court granted the motion.

Exercising Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Companies

Under Massachusetts law, when personal jurisdiction is called into question the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction is valid. In assessing whether personal jurisdiction can be exercised over a non-resident company a court must determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the Massachusetts long-arm statute and with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Massachusetts, business owners generally have an obligation to make their premises safe for visitors and can be held liable for any injuries caused by a dangerous condition on the property. There are some exceptions to the general rule, however, that permit business owners to avoid liability even if a person is injured in an accident caused by an unsafe condition on the business’s property. The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit recently discussed one of these exceptions, in a case in which it found the business owner was not liable for a contractor’s harm, where the harm was caused by the condition the contractor was hired to remedy. If you were injured in an accident while you were visiting a business, it is prudent to meet with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss whether you may be able to recover damages for your harm from the business owner.

Factual Scenario

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for a cleaning company that was hired by the defendant car dealership to clean the dealership. The contract between the defendant and the cleaning company specified that the cleaning company was required to scrub all the service floors six times a week with a degreasing product. On the day of the alleged incident, the plaintiff was working at the defendant dealership. At one point, he walked around a pallet when he lost his balance and fell.

Reportedly, after the plaintiff fell, he observed an accumulation of oil on the floor by the pallet. After the fall, he continued to clean the dealership floors, including the area where he fell. It was ultimately revealed that the plaintiff suffered a significant knee injury in the fall. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and failure to warn. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the condition was open and obvious. The court granted the defendant’s motion, noting that there is no duty to protect a plaintiff from a danger that the plaintiff was hired to cure. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There are drug stores throughout Massachusetts that people visit regularly to fill their prescriptions and purchase health and grooming implements. Drug stores are like any other retail establishment, in that they have a duty to make sure their premises are reasonably safe for any customers shopping in the store. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently addressed what a plaintiff must prove to recover damages following a slip and fall accident in a drug store. If you suffered injuries in a slip and fall accident in a retail store it is essential to consult a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess whether you may be able to seek compensation for your harm.

Factual Background of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff was shopping at the defendant drug store when she slipped and fell on a lip balm ball that was on the floor. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim. The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty or breached any duty owed. The plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The court subsequently granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.

Retail Store Liability for Plaintiff’s Harm

In Massachusetts, a retail store may be held liable for injuries suffered because of a dangerous condition on the premises that the store did not create, but only if the plaintiff can show that the store knew of or should have known of the dangerous condition, and that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Further, the plaintiff must show that the store could not reasonably have expected the plaintiff to discover the dangerous condition or protect himself or herself from harm and that the store failed to use reasonable care to protect the plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Massachusetts law, a property owner has a duty to keep the property in a safe condition to prevent the harm of individuals entering the property. When a property owner breaches this duty and a person is injured due to a dangerous condition, the property owner may be liable for the injured person’s harm. In some instances, a dangerous condition will clearly constitute a breach of the duty to keep a property reasonably safe, but in other cases, such as when a person is injured due to a hidden defect, it may not be clear if the property owner should be held liable. Recently the Appeals Court of Massachusetts analyzed a property owners’ duty to disclose hidden defects in a case in which a contractor was injured when he fell through a roof that was structurally unsound. If you suffered injuries due to a hidden defect on a Massachusetts property it is vital to engage a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assist you in seeking any compensation you may be owed from the landowner.

Facts Regarding the Injured Party’s Fall

It is reported that the plaintiff was hired by the defendant contractor to install a roof on a building’s property. The defendant contractor was hired by the defendant property owner. Prior to the completion of the project, the defendant property owner advised the defendant contractor that he wanted the roof of the porch to be re-shingled. The plaintiff began working on the porch roof. Initially, the plaintiff used a ladder, but he then climbed onto the porch roof to continue re-shingling. The porch roof collapsed, causing the plaintiff to fall twelve feet to the ground. The plaintiff, who was a hemophiliac, required extensive medical treatment. He subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant property owner and defendant contractor. The plaintiff ultimately settled with the defendant contractor.

Allegedly, it was undisputed that the porch roof was not a safe work surface. The plaintiff argued that the defendant property owner should be held liable for his injuries regardless, due to the fact that the roof had hidden defects. Following a trial, the jury found the defendant property owner negligent but found the plaintiff’s negligence exceeded the negligence of the property owner and therefore, awarded the plaintiff no damages. The plaintiff subsequently appealed.
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

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.

Continue reading →