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 →

Published on: |

When a plaintiff files a civil lawsuit seeking damages for harm allegedly caused by an accident, the plaintiff places his or her health at issue. Thus, the defendant in the lawsuit is permitted to seek evidence regarding the plaintiff’s health prior to and after the accident, which can include examinations by a neutral third party. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what examinations a defendant is permitted to request in a case in which the plaintiff alleged injuries caused by a car accident. If you were injured in an accident caused by another party, it is advisable to speak to a zealous Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding what steps you may be able to take to protect your rights.

Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries when she was riding as a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident. She subsequently sued the driver of the car for damages, alleging in part that she suffered a closed head injury due to the defendant’s negligent driving. Following the accident, the plaintiff had to be hospitalized three times for the management of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. She subsequently underwent an evaluation with a neuropsychologist who stated that her recent mental health symptoms were consistent with a traumatic brain injury.

Allegedly, the plaintiff also identified an expert who would testify as to the plaintiff’s loss of earnings due to the accident. The defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to undergo two separate independent evaluations, one by a neuropsychologist and one by a vocational expert. The plaintiff opposed the defendant’s motion, arguing that the defendant should rely on the evaluations produced by the plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When people decided to attend college, they generally assume that whatever school they attend will provide a safe environment. Thus, in some instances in which a person suffers injuries while attending a university, the school will be deemed accountable. Liability will not be imposed in all instances, however, but only when the harm suffered is foreseeable, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of another party, you may be able to recover compensation and should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your potential claims.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was a freshman at the defendant university, attended a party with a male freshman that lived in her dorm. The party was hosted by a resident assistant from another dorm. While at the party, the plaintiff became extremely intoxicated and vomited several times. The male freshman offered to walk the plaintiff home, and she accepted. They ultimately ended up in the male’s room where they engaged in sexual intercourse. The plaintiff vomited while in the male’s room.

Allegedly, the following day she reported that she would not have engaged in sexual activity with the male if she had been sober. The male was eventually charged with sexual assault. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against numerous parties, including the defendant university. Specifically, among other things, the plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent for failing to protect her from the assault. The defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In many instances in which a person is harmed by a corporation, the person will be a citizen of one state, while the corporation will be recognized as a citizen of another state. Thus, in many cases in which a plaintiff seeks damages from a corporation, the case will either be filed in or removed to federal court. Simply because a case is filed in or removed to a federal court does not mean that the court can properly exercise jurisdiction over a matter, however. This was discussed in a recent Massachusetts case in which the District Court assessed whether it had sufficient grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the corporate defendant under the Massachusetts long-arm statute. If you sustained harm due to corporate negligence, it is prudent to meet with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what compensation you may be able to recover.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent used the defendant’s cleaners and solvents for automobile parts throughout the duration of his career as a mechanic in Florida. He subsequently was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia, which he ultimately died from. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Massachusetts state court, alleging the defendant knowingly sold products that contained carcinogens, and that the decedent’s exposure to those products ultimately resulted in his death. The defendant removed the case to the District Court and then filed a motion to dismiss. On review, the court denied the defendant’s motion.

Jurisdiction Under the Massachusetts Long-Arm Statute

For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a plaintiff must first satisfy the Massachusetts Long-Arm Statute (the Statute). Under the Statute, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a company that has its principal place of business in Massachusetts or causes a tortious injury in Massachusetts, either directly or through an agent. A plaintiff alleging jurisdiction based on a tortious injury must demonstrate that a tortious act occurred in Massachusetts. A court evaluating where the harm occurred will assess whether the defendant’s contact’s within the state should be considered the first event in a chain of events that led to the plaintiff’s harm.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

A person suffering from disabilities that prevent the person from holding gainful employment may be eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits. While physical disabilities preclude many recipients of Social Security Disability Benefits from working, mental disabilities can impair a person’s ability to work as well, and evidence regarding mental impairments should not be disregarded. This was discussed in a recent Massachusetts case in which the court overturned the final decision of the Social Security Administration Commissioner on the grounds the decision was not supported by substantial evidence under the Social Security Act. If you are suffering from a mental impairment, you should speak to a trusted Massachusetts Social Security Disability attorney to discuss what benefits you may be eligible to obtain.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed for Social Security Disability Benefits in July 2016, due to physical and mental disabilities. His application was denied and after a subsequent hearing, the denial was affirmed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to reverse the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision, while the Commissioner filed a motion to affirm the final decision. Upon review, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Evidence of Mental Health Conditions

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Commissioner failed to consider important evidence regarding the plaintiff’s mental health issues prior to affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s application for benefits. While the court found that several of the plaintiff’s arguments fell short, the court agreed that the hearing officer improperly discounted the opinions of the plaintiff’s treating provider.

Continue reading →