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: |

Organized sports often involve some degree of risk of bodily harm. Thus, acts that under normal circumstances may constitute tortious behavior will be deemed acceptable, and people who engage in such activities are typically deemed to waive the right to pursue damages for injuries. There are some exceptions, though, as discussed in a recent opinion set forth by a Massachusetts court in which the grounds for imposing liability for harm sustained during an athletic practice were discussed. If you were hurt while engaging in a hobby, you may be owed damages and should meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney to evaluate your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff played softball for the team of a Massachusetts university. Prior to joining the team, the plaintiff had to sign a form indicating that she waived her right to pursue damages and released the university and its agents and employees from liability for any harm she might suffer. One day the plaintiff was practicing in an indoor facility where she and her teammates were engaging in batting practice. A teammate hit a ball off of a tee and, in the process, struck the plaintiff in the head.

Reportedly, she suffered a concussion and needed stitches. A few days after the incident, it became clear that the plaintiff sustained significant injuries, as she was having severe symptoms, including difficulty reading.  The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness claims against the teammate that struck her and the university. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. She then appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is well-established under the law that a plaintiff has the right to choose the forum in which to file a personal injury case. Thus, a court in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff files a case will usually determine the ultimate issues of the matter. In some instances, though, a defendant may argue that another forum is more appropriate and will ask the court to dismiss the matter. The grounds for dismissing a case based on forum non conveniens were recently discussed by a Massachusetts court in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff suffered harm in Greece. If you were hurt by someone else’s reckless acts, you should consult a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to determine what measures you may be able to take to seek damages for your harm.

Factual History

It is reported that when the plaintiff was on vacation in Greece with her husband, she suffered injuries when the boat she was riding in was struck by a boat owned by the defendant, which caused her to require extensive treatment in Greece and the United States. Following the accident, the Greek Port Authority conducted an investigation, which included obtaining thirteen statements from witnesses. The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, who was a resident of Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts district court. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Dismissing a Case Due to Forum Non Conveniens

The law provides that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disregarded. As such, a defendant arguing forum non conveniens bears the burden of establishing that a sufficient alternative forum exists and that the considerations of judicial efficiency and convenience weigh strongly in favor of litigating the case in another forum. The court explained that a sufficient alternative forum exists if the defendant proves that the other forum addresses the type of claims brought by the plaintiff, and the defendant is willing to be served in that forum.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an estate document has been created and executed, courts look at the document itself to determine the will of its creator. The great preference in case law is to stay within the “four corners” of the document, but there are occasions when extra evidence is allowed to be considered to show the writer did not intend a certain result to occur in the execution. A family member or another party with legal standing can file suit, alleging that someone exerted undue influence over the creator of the will or the estate holder. Typically, the party alleging this bears the burden of proof, but the law provides exceptions to this general rule. However, there’s a separate burden of proof if one of the parties involved had a fiduciary relationship with the estate holder. In Teves vs. Costa (15-P-1094), the Appeals Court reviewed a Summary Judgment in favor of the defendants, who argued there was no proof they exerted undue influence over the estate holder.

The original action stemmed from a man who lived with his long-time companion, unmarried, for 25 years until she died in 2008.  During the last six years, he and she lived together in a Massachusetts home that is the subject of the litigation. In 1998, he appointed his partner as his attorney-in-fact and her daughter as successor. After his partner died in 2008, her daughter was added as a signatory to his bank accounts, and he lived with the daughter and her husband until a hospitalization in 2009. During this 11-year period, he was isolated from his children and extended family. When his daughter took over his care after the hospitalization in 2009, she discovered he was destitute, even though he had a pension and half a million in common stock after his retirement.

The daughter, as the trustee of his estate, filed suit against the partner’s daughter and her husband for exercising undue influence and exerting control over his bank accounts and property. The primary concern was the $500,000 from the father toward the purchase of a home worth $695,000, for which he received nothing in return. The house was in the name of his partner and the defendants. The estate holder’s daughter and trustee asserted that there was a verbal agreement between her father and the partner’s daughter and son-in-law to repay the estate for the monies provided for the home purchase. Summary judgment was granted in the defendants’ favor, with the probate judge finding there was no evidence that the defendants stood in as fiduciaries or formed a verbal agreement. The trustee appealed, stating there were triable issues.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Generally, when a person with a disability applies for Supplemental Security Income, the Administrative Law Judge evaluating the individual’s claim will assess the evidence submitted by the claimant, including medical records and testimony. If the Judge relies on unsuitable evidence, though, it can result in an inappropriate decision and may be grounds for a reversal, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case. If you suffer from a disability, you may be able eligible for social security benefits, and it is prudent to speak with a skillful Massachusetts social security disability attorney regarding your rights.

The Underlying Hearing

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered a head injury when she was 23-years-old, after which she spent a year in a rehabilitation center. Since the accident, she suffered seizures and memory decline, and in 2012 an MRI of her brain showed post-traumatic changes. She began treating for anxiety, depression, and seizure disorder but continued to suffer significant symptoms. She ultimately underwent testing that indicated she suffered from numerous mental and physical ailments.

Allegedly, in 2014 the plaintiff filed an application for social security disability benefits. Her claim was denied, and she filed an appeal. She received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (Judge), who determined her ailments were not sufficiently severe to warrant benefits. The plaintiff then appealed, arguing, in part, that the Judge improperly relied on lay testimony and failed to give sufficient weight to her medical expert. The appellate court agreed and reversed the Judge’s ruling. Continue reading →

Published on: |

In addition to the obligation to act with reasonable care imposed on most parties in Massachusetts, parties that own or operate commercial trucks must comply with the regulations set forth by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Thus, a person injured by a careless commercial truck driver may be able to assert general negligence claims as well as claims that the driver failed to comply with the FMCSA regulations. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the pleading standards imposed on a plaintiff pursuing claims arising out of the FMCSA in a case in which the plaintiff asserted a negligence cause of action against a truck driver. If you suffered injuries due to a commercial truck driver, you might be able to recover damages and should speak to a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess what compensation you might be able to recover in a civil lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that an organization hired the defendant company to transport its products from Massachusetts to California. The defendant company subcontracted the job to another entity, who then hired the defendant driver to complete the task. When the defendant driver arrived at the facility in California, he parked his truck and trailer. The plaintiff, who was operating a forklift, entered the trailer when it abruptly dropped twelve inches. The plaintiff struck his head and sustained lasting and severe injuries.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed a lawsuit setting forth negligence claims against the defendant driver and the defendant company. The defendant company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to set forth an adequate claim and that his claims were preempted by federal law.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Defective products harm people throughout Massachusetts on a daily basis. Thus, many people file product liability lawsuits throughout the State to attempt to hold the companies that sell dangerous products accountable. In many instances, such lawsuits involve claims that assert violations of both state and federal law. In a recent opinion, a Massachusetts court discussed the pleading standards imposed on a plaintiff asserting state law claims that are similar to violations of federal law in a matter in which the plaintiff was injured due to a defective medical device. If you were hurt due to a faulty product, you may be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff took a supplement that was developed and sold by the defendant. She subsequently suffered severe side effects, after which she filed a lawsuit against the defendant. In her complaint, she asserted claims of negligence, breach of warranty, failure to warn, and product liability. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing they were pre-empted by federal law. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed, which ultimately resulted in a reversal of the trial court ruling on different grounds than those asserted by the defendant.

Pleading Standards in Federal Cases Asserting State Law Claims

The appellate court held that in matters involving products regulated by the FDA, federal law does not preempt state law claims as long as they parallel federal requirements instead of supplementing them. The court further explained, therefore, that in such circumstances, a plaintiff does not need to allege the exact defect in the device or set forth the specific federal regulation that was allegedly violated in order for a claim to survive. 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: |

While typically, people can be held liable for causing bodily harm to another individual, when the person who causes an injury is employed by a public employer, such as a city, recovering damages can be complicated. Specifically, the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA) protects public corporations from liability in many instances and imposes strict notice requirements that potential claimants must comply with. In a recent Massachusetts opinion, a court discussed what constitutes sufficient notice of a potential tort claim pursuant to the MTCA in a matter in which the plaintiff suffered injuries during an arrest. If you suffered harm due to someone else’s negligence, you could be owed damages and should speak to a Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving home from work when he was pulled over by a police officer employed by the defendant city, based on an anonymous tip that the plaintiff had a gun. The officer forcibly removed the plaintiff from the vehicle, forced him to the ground, and stepped on his neck, collarbone, and shoulder, causing him to sustain a fracture. After the police failed to find a gun in his vehicle, the plaintiff was released.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant setting forth numerous claims, including negligence pursuant to the MTCA. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide it with the proper notice required by the MTCA. Upon review, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is not uncommon for people to allow other individuals to drive their cars. For example, people typically allow their spouses to operate their vehicles. If the spouse then causes an accident, the spouse and the owner could potentially be deemed liable for any harm that ensues. As shown in a recent Massachusetts ruling, though, a court must be able to exercise jurisdiction over both parties in order for it to preside over a case in a matter arising out of a car accident. If you were injured in a collision, multiple parties might be responsible for your harm, and it is prudent to speak with a dedicated Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Accident

It is reported that the plaintiff and his wife were residents of Massachusetts. The defendants are a married couple who live in Virginia. In September 2018, the defendants were in Massachusetts for the wedding of a family friend. The defendant husband was outside of the hotel with friends waiting for his wife to pick him up. The defendant wife, operating the defendant husband’s car, struck the plaintiff who was operating a motorcycle. He suffered severe and debilitating injuries, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendants. The defendant husband moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction Over a Vehicle Owner from Another State

Under Massachusetts’s long-arm statute, a court can exercise jurisdiction over a person who, either directly or through an agent, causes a tortious injury via an omission or act. The plaintiff argued that the defendant wife was acting as the defendant husband’s agent at the time of the accident. The court found, though, that there was no evidence that would demonstrate agency.

Continue reading →