Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, a party who is injured by someone else’s negligence typically has three years from the date of the injury to pursue a claim against the negligent party. In certain cases, however, such as when a person is injured on a public way, the law requires that the injured party provide notice of any potential claim to the allegedly negligent party in a much shorter time frame.

As shown in a recent case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the failure to provide notice of a claim for injuries arising from a defective way can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case, regardless of the cause of the delay. If you suffered harm due to an accident caused by a defective way, you should consult a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her foot while she was walking on a public way in Boston, due to a depression in the road. She provided notice of the claim to the city within thirty days, as required by G. L. c. 84, §§ 15 & 18, commonly referred to as the defective way statute. About three months later, the city sent a letter to the plaintiff denying liability and stating that the defendant gas company was the party responsible for the way in question. The plaintiff sent notice to the defendant gas company the following day and subsequently filed a lawsuit against both the city and the defendant gas company. The defendant gas company filed a motion to dismiss due to late notice, which the court denied. The case proceeded to trial. After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant gas company filed a motion for a directed verdict due to the late notice. The court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In medical malpractice cases, as in all civil claims, the plaintiff must set forth appropriate facts to raise a question of liability as to the defendant medical care providers. Unlike other civil cases, however, the sufficiency of the evidence set forth in a medical malpractice lawsuit is assessed by a tribunal before the plaintiff is allowed to proceed with his or her claim.

Recently, a Massachusetts appellate court reviewed the standard for evaluating whether a plaintiff’s evidence in a medical malpractice case is adequate, in a case in which the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed by the tribunal. If you were harmed by negligent medical care, it is important to retain a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to represent you in your pursuit of compensation, to provide you with a good chance of a favorable outcome under the circumstances.

The Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Against the Defendants

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against four physicians and a hospital, reportedly arising out of the care provided to her husband. Upon review, the tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact as to liability as to all of the defendants, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under the Massachusetts workers’ compensation act, if a person is injured at work he or she can seek workers’ compensation benefits. Even if a person recovers benefits, he or she is still permitted to file a third-party negligence claim against the individual that caused his or her harm, as illustrated in a recent case decided by a Massachusetts Appellate Court.

Additionally, the court explained that the Massachusetts workers’ compensation act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for pursuing a tort claim.  If you were harmed in a work-related injury, you should meet with a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate your case and assess your avenues for seeking recovery of compensation.

Facts Regarding Plaintiff’s Employment

Reportedly, the plaintiff was hired by a temp agency to work at the defendant manufacturing facility. While working there, the plaintiff was injured when one of the defendant’s employee’s negligent operation of a forklift caused metal sheets to fall on her foot. The plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim with the temp agency and received benefits. She was then hired as a full-time employee by the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant and its employee for the harm suffered in the accident, alleging theories of negligence and respondeat superior. The defendant then terminated the plaintiff, stating the lawsuit as the cause of her termination. The plaintiff amended her lawsuit to include a claim for retaliatory termination. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed. 

Continue reading →

Published on: |

No matter how strong a plaintiff’s case, if he or she fails to file a lawsuit within the time period set forth by the applicable statute of limitations, he or she may be precluded from pursuing a claim. While there are some exceptions to the statutory limitations period they only apply in certain circumstances.  This was illustrated in Mendonca v. Walcott, a case in which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice case due to the plaintiff’s failure to file within the three-year time period set forth by the applicable statute of limitations. If you or a loved one were injured due to negligent medical care, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to analyze the facts of your case and to assess whether you may be able to recover damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Allegedly, the plaintiff began treatment with the defendant pediatrician when the plaintiff was 10 years old. When the plaintiff first began treating with the defendant in 2008, it was noted she was remarkably small for her age. In 2009, when she was 11 years old, the plaintiff complained of swollen glands in her neck, for which she was prescribed antibiotics. Later that year during her physical examination, it was again noted that she was very small for her age. The defendant did not examine the plaintiff’s neck during her physical. In 2011, it was noted the plaintiff was in the 5th percentile for her height and 1st for her weight.

Reportedly, on one occasion the plaintiff complained of various concerns and her neck was examined but no abnormality was noted, even though a photograph that was taken at that time depicted visible swelling in the neck. The plaintiff returned with complaints of a lump in her throat in the winter of 2011 and was examined by a nurse practitioner, who noted that the plaintiff’s thyroid felt enlarged. The plaintiff subsequently underwent a biopsy in January of 2012 and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant in August 2015. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The adverse effects of smoking cigarettes are common knowledge. While currently cigarettes must be sold with warning labels, that was not always the case. As such, if someone began smoking decades ago and suffered harm as a result, he or she may be able to pursue claims against cigarette manufacturers on various theories of liability.

Notably, Massachusetts is a jurisdiction that allows such claims, as shown in a recent case in which the Superior Court of Massachusetts ruled that a plaintiff could proceed with its product liability claims against a cigarette manufacturer, denying the defendant manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to a dangerous product, you should meet with an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your options for pursuing compensation.

Plaintiff’s Decedent’s History of Smoking

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s mother began smoking the defendant’s cigarettes in 1963 when she was 13 years old after she was given free cigarettes by one of the defendant’s representatives. She became addicted to cigarettes and smoked two packs per day for decades. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 and ultimately succumbed to the disease. She smoked until her death. After the decedent’s death, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy, and violation of G.L.c. 93A. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the court denied.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many activities require participants to sign a release in which the participant waives the right to recover damages for any injuries sustained during the activity. As such, even if an entity’s negligence causes a participant harm, he or she may not be able to recover compensation. If a release is ambiguous, however, a person may still be able to pursue damages.

This was illustrated in a recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in which the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence claim, where the terms of the release were unclear. If you were injured due to someone else’s negligence, you should confer with a seasoned  Massachusetts personal injury attorney to formulate a plan to help you pursue compensation.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

 It is alleged that the plaintiff was a patron of one of the defendant’s yoga studios. She signed up for training classes, and prior to the classes signed a participation agreement and release of liability. During one training session, the plaintiff used a metal frame stackable chair. When the session was over, the plaintiff folded the chair, lifted it over her head, and carried it to the area of the room where the chairs were stacked. Allegedly, one of the defendant’s employees grabbed the chair without warning, which caused the chair to swing and strike the plaintiff in the head. The blow caused the plaintiff to sustain a concussion. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging she suffered damages due to the negligence of the defendant and its employees. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no negligence and the release precluded liability regardless. The court denied the defendant’s motion.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Individuals injured by the negligence of another person typically do not contemplate the procedural aspects of filing a lawsuit, but they are vital to consider because the failure to follow the rules of procedure can result in the waiver of your right to pursue a claim. For example, the court in which a lawsuit was filed must have jurisdiction over both the claim and the parties, or the case may be dismissed.

Recently, a Massachusetts appellate court examined the factors necessary to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant, in Roch v. Mollica. If you were injured by an individual that does not reside in the state, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss the best manner in which to proceed in your pursuit of damages.

Facts Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

Reportedly, the plaintiff attended college in Massachusetts and was a member of the school’s softball team. She traveled to Florida with the softball team and stayed at a house rented by the defendants, who were the parents of the head coach. While she was there the plaintiff was pushed into a swimming pool as part of a hazing ritual and sustained an injury to her shoulder. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendants for negligence. The defendants, who reside in New Hampshire, were served with process while attending a softball game in Massachusetts. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over them. The court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The evidence presented by either party can make or break a personal injury case. If the court denies a plaintiff’s request that the court take judicial notice of certain evidence it can result in a defense verdict. The Massachusetts Rules of Evidence limit what materials a court may take judicial notice of, however.

This was illustrated in a recent case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, in which the court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to take judicial notice of a driver’s manual, or provide the jury with an instruction with language taken from the manual. If you suffered harm due to a car accident, it is important to retain an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to represent you in your claim for compensation so that your case is handled properly.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported the plaintiff was driving her vehicle when she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant while the defendant was backing out of a residential driveway. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s negligence caused the accident and her harm. Following a trial, the jury found the defendant was not negligent. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the court erred in declining to admit the Registry of Motor Vehicles Driver Manual (Manual) and in failing to provide the jury with the plaintiff’s requested instruction, which was obtained from the Manual. On appeal, the court affirmed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Work-related injuries don’t always arise from accidents but can be caused by repetitive use. Proving that a repetitive use injury is work-related can be complicated, and employers will often try to avoid paying workers’ compensation benefits by arguing an injury was caused by wear and tear rather than conditions encountered in the work environment.

In Maldonando v. CPF Incorporated, the Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board explained the difference between an injury due to wear and tear and a compensable injury in a workers’ compensation claim. If you suffered injuries in an employment-related accident, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney to discuss what benefits you may be able to recover.

Claimant’s Work Duties and Injuries

Allegedly, the claimant, who was in her late fifties, worked placing labels on soda bottles in a factory. The bottles traveled down a conveyor belt and often fell over, and the claimant was required to upright them and make sure the labels were placed properly. Her shifts lasted ten to twelve hours per day, and she was required to walk or stand constantly during her shifts.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, recovering damages from a government entity, while not impossible, is complicated and there are strict guidelines that must be followed in any claim asserted. While governmental entities are afforded certain immunities and defenses, as set forth in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, if a government entity fails to assert a defense in the required manner, it can result in the waiver of the defense. If you suffered an injury that was caused by the negligence of a governmental entity, you should consult a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible to assist you in your pursuit of damages.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Allegedly, the plaintiff was assaulted by a bus driver who worked for the defendant transportation authority. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of negligent hiring, training and supervision, and vicarious liability. The defendant filed an answer to the lawsuit, then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the plaintiff failed to sufficiently notify the defendant of the negligence claim as required under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the Act), and that it was immune to liability for the vicarious liability claim under the Act, due to the fact the liability was based on an intentional tort. The trial court granted the motion as to the vicarious liability claim, but denied it regarding the negligence claim, finding the defendant had waived the defense by failing to specifically assert the defense in its answer. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts took the case under review.

Continue reading →