Published on: |

In Massachusetts, whether a party has a duty to prevent harm depends, in part, on the relationship between the injured person and the party, but in other instances, the duty arises out of a party’s knowledge of the risk of harm. For example, universities do not have a general duty to protect students from self-harm. A university may have a duty, however, to prevent a student from committing suicide in certain instances. Recently, the Superior Court of Massachusetts elucidated when a university may be deemed negligent for failing to prevent a student from committing suicide. If you or your loved one suffered harm because of the negligent acts or failure to act of another party, it is advisable to speak with an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your potential causes of action.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was enrolled at the defendant university in Boston. In April of his freshman year, he attempted suicide. The defendant university learned of the decedent’s attempt and transferred him to a hospital. After he was discharged, he met with the defendant university employee about his treatment going forward. The decedent then entered into a contract with the Dean of Freshman Students, which stated that the decedent would be permitted to remain on campus if he engaged in treatment. The decedent met with the defendant university employee on two occasions, where he expressed skepticism over the treatment.  He was not in treatment from May to September, however. In September, the decedent committed suicide.

It is reported that the decedent’s father filed a lawsuit against the university and several individuals employed by the university, asserting that they had a duty to take measures to prevent the decedent from committing self-harm and that the duty was breached. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Upon review, the court denied the motion.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

If a person sustains injuries at work, he or she may be able to pursue benefits from his or her employer via a workers’ compensation claim. While in some cases a person may be able to seek damages through a personal injury lawsuit instead of a workers’ compensation claim, if the harm arose out the person’s employment, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (MCWA) provides the person’s sole remedy. Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts analyzed whether the intentional acts of a supervisor that harmed an employee were considered incidental to the employee’s employment, so as to bar a personal injury claim. If you suffered harm at work, it is in your best interest to speak with a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss what damages you may be owed.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a mechanic. The plaintiff’s work schedule changed, after which the plaintiff’s supervisor began subjecting the plaintiff to a hostile work environment. Specifically, the plaintiff was harassed for his religious beliefs, denied accommodations, and accosted after he took a picture of the supervisor smoking, which was prohibited.

Reportedly, the plaintiff began experiencing symptoms of fatigue. He was restricted from working temporarily, but when he returned to work, the harassment continued. The plaintiff was then terminated, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his civil rights. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the MCWA.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In many instances in which a Massachusetts resident suffers harm due to the negligence of a company, the company’s principal place of business is located in another state. As such, if the person files a lawsuit against the company in a Massachusetts court, an issue will arise as to whether Massachusetts can exercise jurisdiction over the company. Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts analyzed when a court is permitted to exercised jurisdiction over a foreign company in a slip and fall case that was ultimately transferred to a Rhode Island Court. If you were injured in an accident due to the negligence of an out of state defendant, it is sensible to meet with a  knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your options for pursuing damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Injury

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, traveled to a hotel owned and operated by the defendant in Rhode Island to stay overnight prior to a flight to Florida from a nearby airport. The next morning, the plaintiff tripped and fell while she was leaving her hotel. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging that the defendant’s negligence led to her fall and that the fall caused her to sustain severe injuries. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, after which the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that there was no basis for Massachusetts to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff.

Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Entity

When a defendant files a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that jurisdiction is proper. Thus, the court will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot rely on unsupported averments, however, but must set forth sufficient facts to show that jurisdiction is proper.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many sports and activities present an inherent risk of harm, and the people who engage in those activities are deemed to consent to the risk of the type of injury ordinarily caused by such activities. If a person engages in a reckless act during such an activity, though, they may potentially be held liable for the harm caused by the act. The appeals court of Massachusetts recently assessed the standard for imposing liability on a person for harm sustained during a sporting event, in a case in which a hockey player sustained significant injuries. If you sustained injuries due to the reckless acts of another person, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what compensation you may be owed.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

It is reported that the plaintiff was injured during a hockey game, that was held during a championship tournament.  The plaintiff, who was 17 years old, was checked into the boards by a player from the opposing team. It is disputed as to whether the hit was a charge, in violation of hockey rules. After the hit, the plaintiff fell to the ice and temporarily lost consciousness. While he was on the ice, his wrist was sliced by the blade of another player’s ice skate. The plaintiff subsequently suffered a partial permanent loss of his right hand, which was his dominant hand. He then filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants, including the player that struck him, alleging claims of recklessness and negligence. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

Liability for Harm Suffered During a Sporting Event

On appeal, the court noted that generally, issues of recklessness and negligence are issues for the jury, but when it is clear based upon the evidence of record that no rational interpretation would permit a finding of negligence, judgment in favor of the defendants is proper. The court stated that with regards to liability arising out of an act committed during a sporting event, participants engaged in such events have a duty to refrain from engaging in reckless acts.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In a civil lawsuit, the complaint sets forth the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, and if the allegations in the complaint are not properly pleaded, the complaint may be dismissed. Thankfully, Massachusetts’s liberal standards typically allow a plaintiff to file an amended complaint even if the initial complaint was dismissed. A plaintiff who wishes to pursue a claim following a dismissal of the complaint must comply with the statutory requirements, however, including the statute of limitations, or his or her claim may be barred in its entirety. Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts analyzed whether a plaintiff is barred from pursuing claims if the statute of limitations runs after the initial complaint is dismissed but before the amended complaint is filed, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he was harmed in the workplace. If you suffered a work injury, it is advisable to speak with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your potential causes of action.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that in January 2016, the plaintiff was injured in an industrial accident while at work. He filed a workers’ compensation claim following the accident and received a settlement. In January 2019, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Massachusetts courts alleging negligence claims against the defendant corporation that owned the facility where the accident took place and the container that exploded, causing him harm, and other entities that distributed the container. The defendants removed the case to federal court and filed motions to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

It is alleged that in July 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motions, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and allowing him thirty days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint later that month, after which the defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the amended complaint was timely under the relation-back theory.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Slip and fall accidents are a common cause of personal injury in Massachusetts. While a slip and fall accident can occur anywhere, some businesses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, experience a greater number of slip and fall accidents due to the increased likelihood of a by debris or liquid on the floor, causing a dangerous condition. As demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts appellate court case, regardless of where a fall occurs, a plaintiff seeking to recover damages in a slip and fall lawsuit must produce sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant could have prevented the plaintiff’s harm and, therefore, should be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. If you were injured in a slip and fall accident in Massachusetts, it is prudent to speak with an assertive Massachusetts slip and fall attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that a surveillance video showed a child dropping a bottle on the floor of an aisle of the defendant’s grocery store. Approximately three minutes after the child dropped the bottle, the plaintiff fell in the same area. The plaintiff did not see anything on the floor prior to the fall, but after she fell, she observed a brown, sticky substance on the ground. The plaintiff sustained injuries to her shoulder, knee, and hip in the fall and subsequently filed a negligence claim against the defendant.

Allegedly, there was no evidence introduced at trial that the defendant had knowledge of the substance prior to the plaintiff’s fall, but its employees were trained to inspect the aisles for spills or other hazards, and if they discovered a spill how to prevent harm prior to when the spill was cleaned. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $50,000. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding constructive notice or mode of operation.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is not uncommon for a victim who has suffered injuries to name more than one defendant in a civil lawsuit. While naming multiple defendants allows a plaintiff to seek compensation from anyone liable for his or her harm, it may present issues in resolving claims against the defendants individually. This was demonstrated in a recent personal injury case decided by a Massachusetts appellate court, in which the court vacated a defendant’s order for certification of separate and final judgment. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of multiple parties, it is in your best interest to meet with a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess the claims that you may be able to pursue.

Factual Background of the Case

The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant property owner. The stove in the plaintiff’s apartment was defective, but, rather than replace it, the defendant property owner hired the defendant repair company to repair the stove on three different occasions. The defendant repair company ultimately advised the plaintiff that the stove was fixed. When the plaintiff attempted to light the pilot light after it went out, however, he suffered severe burns on his right hand. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against both defendants.

The plaintiff and the defendant repair company reached a settlement and executed a release. The defendant repair company then filed a motion for entry of a final and separate judgment. The defendant property owner opposed the motion on the grounds that it was not warranted and that he had outstanding claims for indemnification. The judge granted the motion regardless, and the defendant property owner appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In many instances in which a person suffers a debilitating injury, the person will be unable to do any meaningful work and therefore cannot earn a living. In such cases, the person may file for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI). SSDI is not always granted, however, even if the claimant provides ample evidence of his or her injury if conflicting evidence is presented regarding the claimant’s lack of disability. In a recent case ruled on by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the court discussed what weight should be given to conflicting evidence when evaluating entitlement to SSDI. If you were injured and can no longer work, it is prudent to consult a seasoned Massachusetts social security disability attorney to discuss your case and whether you may be able to recover benefits.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Background

It is reported that the claimant sustained an injury to his shoulder while working as an order picker at a warehouse. He subsequently filed a disability claim due to complex regional pain syndrome/reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. His application was denied, and a subsequent reconsideration was denied. He then requested a hearing with an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, which became the final decision, and the claimant appealed. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ALJ committed an error by failing to give the claimant’s treating care provider controlling weight. Instead, the court adopted the findings of the physician who conducted an independent medical examination and opined the claimant did not have a physical disability.

Weight of the Evidence of Disability

On appeal, the court stated that under the treating source rule of the Social Security Administration, an ALJ should give greater weight to the opinions of claimants’ treating physicians, as they are the people most likely to be able to provide detailed pictures of the claimant’s disability. Further, the rule notes that a treating physician may have medical evidence that cannot be obtained solely from an independent medical examination. The court further explained that a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight unless it is not supported by medically acceptable techniques, or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In any civil lawsuit, the parties will engage in discovery during which they will exchange documents and depose witnesses to attempt to obtain facts in support of their position. Not all materials are discoverable, however, as certain information is protected by privilege. In a recent product liability case in which it is alleged that medication caused birth defects,  the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts discussed when a plaintiff can be compelled to disclose information relied upon by and obtained from a consulting expert. If you were or a loved one suffered injuries due to  a defective product you should speak with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant setting forth product liability claims alleging that  drug manufactured by the defendant and prescribed to pregnant women caused birth defects in their children. In part, the plaintiffs relied on a report by an expert third-party witness, in support of their argument that the defendant’s drug caused birth defects. The defendants sought to depose the third-party witness, and sought documents regarding the relationship between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the third-party witness via discovery. Plaintiffs and the third-party witness both filed motions for a protective order arguing that the documents sought were protected by the work-product doctrine. The court ultimately denied the motions, finding that the documents were not privileged.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When a person is injured by a national corporation, pursuing damages against the corporation can be complicated. For example, the injured person must show that the court can exercise jurisdiction over the corporation and that the corporation can be held liable under the claims asserted, otherwise the injured person’s claims may fail. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which a plaintiff sought to hold a national drug company responsible for harm caused by a contrast agent administered during an MRI. If you sustained injuries due to the negligence of a corporation, it is prudent to meet with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an MRI, during which he was given an injection of a gadolinium-based contrast agent, that was manufactured by the defendant. Following the MRI, the plaintiff suffered gadolinium retention in several organs, which caused him to suffer emotional and physical injuries. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant failed to warn the patient adequately of the risks associated with gadolinium. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The court granted the defendant’s motion but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over an Out of State Corporation

A court can exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In the subject case, the plaintiff conceded that the court did not have general personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the court’s analysis focused on whether specific personal jurisdiction could properly be exercised over the defendant.

Continue reading →