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 →

Published on: |

Many people who cannot work are able to obtain social security benefits. A key element to eligibility for such benefits is a disability that prevents a person from being able to remain gainfully employed. Thus, people that cannot prove they are disabled will be denied benefits. Recently, a Massachusetts court issued an opinion discussing what factors are considered in determining whether a person is disabled under the Social Security Act. If you cannot work due to an injury or illness, you may be owed social security benefits, and it is prudent to meet with a skilled Massachusetts social security disability attorney regarding your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that in December 2014, the plaintiff herniated a disc in his lumbar spine and suffered from disc bulges in other areas. He was regularly treated for his injuries, which included undergoing epidural injections. In January 2016, he was involved in a car accident while working, after which he experienced increased pain. He developed sciatica as well. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, and a doctor ultimately deemed him permanently and totally disabled for any job due to his injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff continued treating, and medical records throughout his treatment alternately indicated severe symptoms and a lack of any issues. He then filed a claim for social security disability benefits, listing the date of the car accident as the onset of his disability. His application was denied after he was deemed not disabled. He then appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In its report dated November 4, 2020, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded an estimated 2.8 million non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses in 2019 in the private industry sector. These estimates are from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII).

Manufacturing accounted for 15% of all private industry non-fatal injuries and illnesses. These injuries include sprains, strains or tears, pain, soreness, lacerations, cuts, punctures and fractures. Ten occupations accounted for 33.2 percent of all private industry cases. Of these, laborers and freight, stock, and material movers had the highest number of cases with 64,160, followed by heavy and tractor-trailer drivers. Closing out this group of high-incidence injury occupations, in order, are nursing assistants, stockers and order-fillers, retail salespersons, light truck drivers, maintenance and repair workers, registered nurses, construction laborers, janitors and cleaners, (excluding maids and housekeeping cleaners).

Consistently over several years, data shows the following trends in injury incidence rates in the workplace. Injuries in order of frequency from highest to lowest include overexertion, falls, slips and trips, contact with objects or equipment, violence and other injury by persons or animals and finally transportation incidents.

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, a person that suffers harm due to someone else’s negligence can pursue damages from the negligent party in a civil lawsuit. Additionally, if the negligent party was working on behalf of another individual or entity, the company that employed the negligent party may be held liable as well. Recently, a Massachusetts appellate court explained when an employer might be held liable for an employee’s actions in a case in which the employee assaulted a customer.  If you suffered injuries due to the acts of an employee of a company, you should speak to a vigilant Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess what parties may be liable for the harm.

Case History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was assaulted by an employee of the defendant. The employee had driven a rented truck to Massachusetts to move a customer for the defendant but was not working at the time of the attack. The plaintiff and her husband filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it should not be liable for the plaintiff’s harm because the harm was not a foreseeable consequence of the assailant’s employment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Employer Liability for the Acts of an Employee

Under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff alleging negligence must provide evidence demonstrating that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to act with reasonable care, but that the defendant breached the duty, and damage resulted in that was caused by the breach. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the defendant breached the duty to inquire into the assailant’s background prior to hiring the assailant. Further, a background check would have revealed that the assailant had an extensive criminal history, including multiple felonies. Additionally, the appellate court noted that the defendant violated its own policy in failing to conduct a background check.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Physicians owe a duty of care to their patients, which includes the duty to provide the patient with the information needed to make intelligent and informed decisions regarding potential treatment, and a doctor that violates this duty can be held liable for medical malpractice. When the patient is a child, a treating physician owes the duty to disclose pertinent information to the child’s parents. As recently discussed in a Massachusetts medical malpractice case, however, the duties owed to the parent of a patient do not include the duty to treat the parent. If you were injured by incompetent medical care in Massachusetts, it is prudent to speak with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding what damages you may be owed.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff-child was admitted to the psychiatric ward of a hospital after she ingested several pills with suicidal intent. The plaintiff-child was hospitalized for six weeks, during which she rarely communicated with the plaintiff-mother. Following the plaintiff-child’s discharge, the plaintiff-mother filed a lawsuit against the defendant hospital, alleging, in part, that the defendant committed medical malpractice by failing to provide family-driven treatment or facilitating communications between the plaintiff-mother and plaintiff-child. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the medical malpractice claims, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed, but on appeal, the appellate court affirmed.

Duties Physicians Owe to Parents of Minor Patients

Under Massachusetts law, when a patient is a minor, the parent or individual responsible for making healthcare decisions for the child is usually the child’s legal custodian. Thus, a physician treating the child has a duty to advise the custodial adult of any significant medical information regarding the child that is pertinent to making informed decisions regarding treatment. In the subject case, the plaintiff-mother was the plaintiff-child’s custodial adult, and therefore the defendant had a duty to obtain the plaintiff-mother’s informed consent prior to treating the child.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, landlords generally owe a duty of care to their tenants to maintain their rental property in a reasonably safe condition, which includes ensuring that snow and ice are cleared from any common area. If a landlord fails to properly clear snow and ice from a property, and a tenant suffers injuries in a slip and fall accident, the landlord may be liable for negligence. As explained in a recent Massachusetts appellate court case, however, a landlord cannot be held liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability for injuries caused by the failure to remove snow and ice. If you suffered injuries in a slip and fall accident at your rental property, you should speak to a Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff lived in a house he rented from the defendant. In 2010, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries when he slipped and fell due to snow and ice in the house’s driveway. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The jury found that the plaintiff’s negligence exceeded the negligence of the defendant and therefore declined to award the plaintiff damages under the negligence claim. Additionally, based on the jury’s findings, the judge ruled that the plaintiff could not recover under any other theory of liability. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that because the defendant was deemed negligent, he violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment and breached the implied warranty of habitability as a matter of law.

A Landlord’s Liability for Failing to Remove Snow and Ice

Under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff who is injured in a slip and fall accident caused by a defendant’s failure to exercise due care in the removal of snow and ice may recover under a theory of negligence against the defendant, unless the plaintiff is over fifty percent responsible for his or her own injuries. Similarly, the implied warranty of habitability is an implied warranty in residential leases that the premises will be suitable as a dwelling for a human and will remain suitable throughout the duration of the lease.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Typically, a plaintiff in a Massachusetts medical malpractice lawsuit will assert a negligence claim against the defendant, but in cases in which the defendants’ acts were especially egregious, the defendant may not only be held liable for negligence, but also for gross negligence. In a recent Massachusetts case in which the defendant doctor appealed the trial court verdict, the appellate court discussed the factors weighed in determining if a defendant’s actions constitute gross negligence. If you were harmed by a negligent healthcare provider, it is advisable to consult an attorney regarding what claims you may be able to pursue.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent underwent a surgical repair of a hiatal hernia that was performed by the defendant. During the procedure, the defendant used tacks to attach the mesh to the decedent’s diaphragm. The warning materials for the tacks indicated they should not be used in certain areas of the body, such as near the pericardium. Following the surgery, the decedent began to experience cardiac symptoms and ultimately died due to cardiac arrest.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant was both negligent and grossly negligent in the treatment of the decedent, and that his negligence caused the decedent’s death. The defendant appealed on the issue of whether he was grossly negligent.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many claims against national corporations are filed in or removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. For a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a case, though, there must be complete diversity between the plaintiff and all named defendants. Thus, in some instances, a defendant will allege that a plaintiff fraudulently joined a defendant that resides in the same jurisdiction as the defendant, simply to keep a case out of federal court. Recently, a Massachusetts district court discussed fraudulent joinder in a product liability case against a car manufacturer and car dealership. If you sustained injuries due to a defective product, you should speak to a seasoned Massachusetts product liability attorney to assess what damages you may be owed.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent was driving her car when it suddenly accelerated, causing her to lose control and crash into a building. The decedent died due to her injuries. The plaintiff subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts state court against the defendant auto dealership that sold the car, which had a principal place of business in Massachusetts, and the defendant auto manufacturer that made the car, which had a principal place of business in California, asserting claims of negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The defendants moved the case to federal court, arguing that the defendant auto dealer was fraudulently joined and that the plaintiff could not maintain claims against the defendant auto dealer. The plaintiff then filed a motion to remand.

Jurisdiction Based on Complete Diversity

Under federal law, a lawsuit that may otherwise be removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction may not be removed if any of the parties properly joined as defendants and served by the plaintiff are citizens of the state where the lawsuit was brought. A plaintiff cannot, however, impede a defendant’s right to remove a case by fraudulently joined a defendant that has no true connection to the case but is non-diverse.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, if an employee suffers an injury in the workplace, the employee is typically limited to pursuing a workers’ compensation claim to recover compensation for his or her harm. If the person that suffers an injury while working is not an employee, however, he or she may be able to pursue a claim for damages if the injury was caused by another person’s negligence. As explained in a recent Massachusetts case, though, a person that employs an independent contractor generally cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the negligent acts of the contractor. If you suffered harm due to someone else’s negligence, you may be able to pursue a claim for damages and should consult a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your harm.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant homeowner hired a general contractor to perform renovations on her home. In turn, the general contractor hired the plaintiff, a subcontractor, to assist with the project. During the project, the plaintiff severed his thumb while using a table saw he owned. The plaintiff then filed a negligence claim against the defendant, arguing she negligently caused his injury by failing to provide a safe construction area. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed, and on appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Employer Liability for Harm Caused by an Independent Contractor

In part, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant should be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm because the defendant retained control over the project. Generally, a person that employs an independent contractor will not be deemed liable for any harm negligently caused by the independent contractor. In other words, the independent contractor’s work should be considered his or her own enterprise, and the independent contractor should be charged with the duty of preventing harm to others.

Continue reading →