COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients

Top 100 2019
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
AVVO Car Accident 2015
AVVO Top Attorney Car Accident
American Academy of Trial Attorneys
10 Best 2015

Planes rarely crash, but when they do, the damages sustained are usually catastrophic. Plane crashes are typically caused by malfunctioning parts within the aircraft, and in many cases, more than one party bears liability. While parties have the right to seek compensation for losses caused by plane crashes, it may not be evident which jurisdiction’s laws apply to their claims. In a recent Massachusetts opinion, the court explained the analysis it must undergo to assess what laws are applicable. If you lost loved ones in a plane collision, it is in your best interest to contact a Cape Cod personal injury attorney about your options for seeking compensation.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that in October 2015, a plane crashed in Mexico, killing all four people that were aboard. The cause of the crash was determined to be a failure of the plane’s horizontal stabilizer actuator. The plane was owned by a Massachusetts corporation. In 2012, the owner sent the plane to a facility owned by another Massachusetts company, where it underwent an inspection, maintenance, and repairs of various parts, including the plane’s horizontal stabilizer actuator.

Allegedly, representatives of the estates of the people who died in the crash instituted a lawsuit against the owner and repair facility in a Massachusetts court, asserting claims of negligence and breach of warranty. The defendants moved for the court to apply Mexican law to the case, but their motion was denied. Continue Reading ›

In most instances, parties will not be held responsible for the acts of other individuals. There are exceptions, though, that would allow for the imposition of vicarious liability. For example, employers may be held accountable for the negligent acts of their employees if they occurred while the employee was working. Typically, vicarious liability does not allow for the imposition of fault for the acts of an independent contractor, though, as discussed in a recent opinion issued by a Massachusetts court. If you sustained injuries in an accident caused by another party, you might be owed damages, and it is advisable to consult a Cape Cod personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

The Subject Accident

Allegedly, the defendant driver was an independent contractor working for the defendant corporation. After the defendant driver completed a contract for the defendant corporation, he was on his way to pick up a load for another corporation when he ran a red light and struck the decedent’s vehicle. The decedent died from the injuries he sustained in the accident two days later.

It is reported that the plaintiff, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that the defendant driver was directly liable and the defendant corporation was vicariously liable for the decedent’s death. The defendant corporation moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then filed an appeal. Continue Reading ›

People who are hurt due to the negligence of others can often recover damages in civil lawsuits. While some harm is abundantly clear, other injuries are less obvious. As such, it is not uncommon for a defendant to request that a plaintiff undergo an independent medical examination. While such examinations are permitted under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 35, only certain parties are authorized to conduct them. In a recent opinion, a Massachusetts court analyzed whether neuropsychologists are among those authorized to conduct such examinations. If you were injured in an accident caused by another party’s carelessness, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should meet with a Cape Cod personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked on a construction site where the defendant acted as the general contractor. He was involved in a catastrophic accident that caused him to suffer significant cognitive and physical injuries. His conservators then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence caused the plaintiff’s harm.

It is reported that during discovery, the plaintiff produced an opinion from a neuropsychologist outlining his cognitive harm. After reviewing the opinion and the plaintiff’s medical records, the defendant disputed the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and moved to have him undergo an examination with a neuropsychologist pursuant to Rule 35. The plaintiff objected, arguing that an examination with a neuropsychologist was not permitted under Rule 35, as neuropsychologists are not doctors. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Generally, in personal injury lawsuits filed in Massachusetts, the plaintiff will assert a negligence claim against the defendant. A core element of negligence is duty; absent proof that the defendant owed some obligation to the plaintiff, a plaintiff’s negligence claim cannot prevail. Duties typically arise out of the relationships between the parties, but they can arise under a statute or regulation as well. Recently, a Massachusetts court analyzed what duty a general contractor owes an employee of its subcontractor in a case in which the court ultimately determined that no duty was owed. If you sustained injuries in an incident brought about by someone else’s negligence, you could be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to confer with a Cape Cod personal injury attorney regarding your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries

It is alleged that the plaintiff was working as a framer on a construction project when he fell from a scaffold, injuring his leg and foot. The plaintiff, who was employed by a subcontractor, brought negligence claims against the general contractor. The parties waived their right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was conducted. After the plaintiff presented his case, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b)(2). The trial judge granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Duties General Contractors Owe to Employees of Their Subcontractors

On appeal, the appellate court noted that the trial court granted the defendant’s motion on the grounds that it did not owe any duty to the plaintiff. In Massachusetts, four elements comprise negligence: a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of the duty, actual harm, and a connection between the harm suffered and the defendant’s breach. Continue Reading ›

Typically, a plaintiff alleging a defendant should be deemed liable for negligence under Massachusetts law must offer evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and that it breached the duty, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, however, a jury can infer the negligence of the defendant without actual proof of the elements. Recently, a court discussed the elements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in a case in which the plaintiff sought damages from a restaurant after the chair he was sitting in collapsed. If you were hurt in an accident, it is smart to talk to a Cape Cod personal injury attorney about your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff was eating lunch at the defendant’s restaurant when the chair he was sitting in collapsed. He suffered injuries in the fall and subsequently brought a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence caused his harm. After discovery was complete, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not offered evidence of a breach of a duty owed or causation as required to demonstrate negligence under Massachusetts law. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor would allow the jury to infer the negligence of the defendant.

Res Ipsa Loquitor in Massachusetts

The appellate court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the trial court ruling. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant clearly owed the plaintiff, who was a business invitee, the duty to exercise reasonable care. This included, among other things, the duty included the obligation to ensure that the seat the plaintiff sat on was in a reasonably safe condition. The appellate court also found that the evidence readily allowed for the inference that the chair offered to the plaintiff was defective. Continue Reading ›

Subject to certain parameters, people generally have the right to pursue claims in the forum of their choosing. If a party files a personal injury lawsuit in Massachusetts for harm that occurred in another state, though, it may not immediately be evident which state’s laws apply, and the court will have to make a determination. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the factors weighed in conducting a choice of law analysis in a matter arising from an accident that occurred in Rhode Island. If you were hurt due to another party’s carelessness, you could be owed compensation, and you should meet with a Cape Cod personal injury attorney to assess your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, was working on a construction site in Rhode Island when a piece of machinery crushed his leg. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Massachusetts court, arguing that his harm arose from the negligent supervision. The matter proceeded to trial, and the jury found that the plaintiff was 65% at fault while the defendant was 35% at fault and that Rhode Island’s comparative negligence law applied. The parties all appealed.

Factors Weighed in Conducting a Choice of Law Analysis

On appeal, the court addressed the issue of which state’s law applied. In resolving questions regarding conflict of laws, the courts apply the conflict of laws rules of Massachusetts to determine which state’s laws apply. First, the court must assess whether the choice between the laws of the jurisdictions in question will impact the outcome of the case. Next, the court will determine whether the issue is substantive or procedural. Continue Reading ›

People in the military can receive health care at facilities run by the federal government. If they suffer harm in such facilities, they may be able to pursue claims for damages. However, proving liability can be difficult as the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act) insulates the federal government from liability in many situations. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed immunity under the Act in a case in which it ruled that it was unclear whether the harm in question was caused by negligence as required to trigger the Act. If you were hurt due to the failure of a government employee, you should speak to a Cape Cod personal injury attorney to assess what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Decedent’s Harm

It is reported that the decedent, who was a veteran, was admitted to the defendant federal government’s medical facility for numerous mental health concerns. Before his admittance, he was searched for any weapons and illicit substances, but none were found. Throughout his stay, he expressed suicidal ideation and was subsequently closely monitored.

Allegedly, one afternoon a staff employee checked on the decedent sitting in a lounge area and found that he appeared calm. He was found dead approximately two hours later. The cause of his death was determined to be a fentanyl overdose. Neither he nor anyone else at the facility was prescribed fentanyl. The plaintiff instituted a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence led to the decedent’s death. She later filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Continue Reading ›

People harmed by dangerous products have a right to seek compensation from the entities that developed and sold the defective device. Product liability claims are complicated and typically involve issues beyond the realm of understanding of the average person. As such, in most product liability cases, the plaintiff will need to hire an expert to offer testimony regarding the nature in which the product in question was defective and how the defect caused the harm sustained. If a plaintiff’s expert is precluded from testifying, it may prevent them from establishing liability. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the admissibility of expert testimony in product liability cases in a matter arising out of harm caused by a defective motorcycle. If you were injured in an accident caused by a defective product, it is wise to meet with a Cape Cod product liability attorney to discuss what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The History of the Case

It is reported that in July 2013, the decedent was operating a motorcycle manufactured by the defendant when he collided with another vehicle that was making a U-turn. The impact caused the motorcycle’s fuel tank to burst, which subsequently caused a fire. The decedent sustained second and third-degree burns that required over twenty surgeries to treat. He later died by suicide.

It is alleged that the plaintiff instituted a product liability lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of the decedent’s estate. The defendant moved for the plaintiff’s expert report to be deemed inadmissible and for summary judgment. The court granted both motions, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Typically, people who suffer losses due to car accidents can recover benefits from their insurer. While some insurance claims are straightforward and are paid promptly, in others, the insurer will dispute the harm suffered or the damages owed. In such instances, the parties will typically turn to the courts to interpret the applicable provisions. For example, in a recent Massachusetts opinion, a court answered the question of whether emotional distress constituted bodily injury under the terms of a policy, ultimately determining that it did not. If you were hurt in a car accident, you may be owed compensation, and it is advisable to speak to a Cape Cod car accident attorney to discuss your possible causes of action.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff and her husband were driving towards one another on a highway; she was driving a car and he a motorcycle. As they approached the intersection, the car in front of the plaintiff turned and struck her husband. The plaintiff witnessed the accident and saw her husband fly through the air and land on the pavement. He later died from his injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff developed PTSD and filed a lawsuit against the driver that caused the accident. Her insurer tendered $250,000 to the plaintiff, which it alleged was the maximum amount she was entitled to as only one person suffered bodily harm. The plaintiff rejected this assertion, arguing she suffered bodily harm as well in the form of post-accident trauma. The insurer then filed a declaratory judgment action. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Under Massachusetts law, people harmed by defective medical devices can pursue product liability claims against the parties responsible for making and selling them. While proving the liability of the party that manufactured a defective product is relatively straightforward, establishing the fault of a party that merely distributed the defective device can be more challenging. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what a plaintiff alleging a defendant sold a defective product must demonstrate to establish negligence. If you suffered harm due to a dangerous device, you have the right to seek damages, and you should meet with a Cape Cod product liability attorney to discuss your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a surgical replacement of his hip, which used a hip replacement system designed and produced by the defendant manufacturers and distributed by the defendant seller. He suffered heavy metal poisoning due to the device, which led to pain, bone loss, tissue damage, and other injuries and ultimately required surgical removal. He asserted numerous claims against the defendants in a civil lawsuit, including a negligence claim against the defendant seller. At issue was whether the claims against the defendant seller were sufficient.

Contact Information