Personal Injury

February 6, 2020

What Massachusetts Residents Need to Know About Automobile Insurance

It is no secret that having the right automobile accident insurance is important, but many people do not truly understand the type of insurance that they need or even what coverage they currently have. Unfortunately, some drivers do not learn that they have inadequate coverage until they have been involved in a Cape Cod car accident. By then, of course, it is too late to get the appropriate coverage for that particular accident. Knowing what coverage you have, what additional coverage may be advisable, and how different types of coverage work is very important. Below, we discuss several different types of insurance coverage that can protect a family in the event of a crash.

“No-Fault” Does Not Always Mean No Lawsuit

Massachusetts is a “no-fault” state for purposes of automobile accident insurance. Under no-fault laws, drivers are required to purchase personal injury protection (PIP) insurance that will cover a certain dollar amount of medical expenses and a portion of lost wages resulting from an accident, regardless of who caused the collision. However, “no-fault” does not mean that no one can ever be held legally liable for injuries caused by an accident, nor does it mean that all of the insured driver’s expenses are covered under PIP. While each party must rely on his or her own insurance to pay minor expenses associated with a car accident, those who meet a certain threshold established by state statute have the right to file a traditional negligence lawsuit seeking full compensation from the responsible party.

Drivers are also required to purchase liability insurance to cover damages in the event that they are found to be at fault in an accident and the other driver (or a passenger) is able to get past the no-fault threshold and proceed toward traditional tort liability. Currently, the minimum coverage for bodily injury to others is $20,000 per person or $40,000 per accident. There is also a compulsory requirement for property damage (payable when the insured driver causes damages to someone else’s vehicle by causing an accident); the mandatory minimum is $5000 at present.

January 29, 2020

Fire Risk From Faulty Products is an Ongoing Concern in Massachusetts and Across the Country

By John C. Manoog III

When a defective product causes injury or death to a consumer, the consumer (or his or her family) may be able to recover a settlement or judgment against the company that made the product. In some situations, the wholesaler and or seller may also be liable. There are several different legal theories upon which the consumer may rely on in a Cape Cod products liability lawsuit. These theories include (but are not necessarily limited to) design defect, manufacturing defect, strict liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. It is important that a person who has been hurt by a dangerous product get legal advice in a timely fashion, lest his or her claim become time-barred under state products liability laws.

Battery Banks Recalled

Most of us rely heavily on our cellphones these days, and a dead battery can disrupt not only our entertainment but also our ability to communicate and, when we are traveling, navigate. Portable power banks have become very popular, as we often need additional battery power to get us through a long day or a weekend trip. Unfortunately, power banks are not without risk. Recently, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall of certain 10,000 mAh power banks because the banks’ battery may overheat and cause a fire. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled products immediately.

Interestingly, these banks are not associated with a particular brand. Rather, they may contain a company logo on the front and or back of the product. This is because they were distributed as promotional items at meetings or other events rather than sold directly to the public. If you have suffered a fire or a burn caused by one of these banks or another lithium-ion battery product, you may be able to seek compensation via a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the device.

January 22, 2020

Foster Family’s Claim Against State Child Services Department Was Not Barred by Massachusetts Governmental Tort Act

By John C. Manoog III

Maintaining a personal injury or wrongful death claim against a governmental entity can be difficult. In fact, there was once a time in which such claims were not allowed under the law. Nowadays, however, a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit against the government may be possible in some situations, although it can be expected that the government will attempt to get the case dismissed, if at all possible. Even if the claim survives a motion to dismiss, there may be limitations on the amount of damages available to the plaintiff for his or her injuries. There may also be other procedural hurdles, including the requirement of formal notice within a relatively short period after the accident.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case, the plaintiffs were a mother, father, and minor child who sought compensation from the defendant, a state child services department, for injuries suffered by the minor child due sexual assault by a foster child whom the family had taken in. Although the placement was supposed to be short-term, the defendant left the foster child (a 12-year-old boy) in the plaintiff foster parents’ care for several months. Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs – but known by the defendant – the foster child had a history of both having been sexually abused himself and also being the perpetrator of sexual abuse.

After the minor child (a 5-year-old girl) disclosed that the foster child had sexually assaulted her, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant, claiming that the defendant had been negligent in placing the foster child with them and that the defendant had breached a contractual agreement under which the defendant had agreed to provide the plaintiffs with “sufficient information” about any proposed foster child to enable them to knowledgeably determine whether to accept the child.

December 9, 2019

Massachusetts Court Affirms Summary Judgment to Player, Coaches, and Refs in Hockey Player’s Personal Injury Lawsuit

By John C. Manoog III

In a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit, the essential question is, did the defendant behave in a reasonably prudent manner under the circumstances? These types of cases can be very fact-specific, as what constitutes “reasonable” can vary substantially from situation to situation.

For example, generally speaking, it would not be considered reasonable to run into another person with the intent of knocking an object out of his or her possession. However, the same conduct might be considered acceptable within the confines of two teams playing a rough sport – hockey, for example. Still, even in a game, there are situations in which a negligence or recklessness claim may be viable. As stated above, it all depends on the circumstances.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts appeals court case, the plaintiff was a hockey player who brought suit against the defendants (the plaintiff’s coach, a player on an opposing team, the opposing team’s coach, two referees, and others), seeking monetary compensation for injuries he allegedly incurred while participating in a hockey game. Both the plaintiff and the opposing player whose blades allegedly cut the plaintiff’s wrist during the game were 17 years old at the time of the incident giving rise to the litigation.

November 19, 2019

Massachusetts Tort Claims Act Protects Transportation Authority from Claim Arising from Discretionary Function

By John C. Manoog III

When a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit is filed against a defendant that is a governmental entity, there is often a defense that the entity is immune from suit based on the principles of governmental tort immunity. Of course, this defense is not always successful, as there are many situations in which the government can be sued, and a judgment can be entered. Resolution of the issue of whether or not immunity applies is typically handled by motion practice in the trial court, sometimes with interlocutory review by the appellate court if an appeal is filed by the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case (unreported), the plaintiff was a man who suffered a closed head injury and bilateral leg amputations after falling onto subway tracks (owned and maintained by the defendant transportation authority) and being struck by a train. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, averring that the defendant was negligent in failing to adequately staff the station with a safety inspector or a customer service agent (CSA) on the day the accident occurred.

The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that it was immune from liability for the plaintiff’s failure-to-staff claim, citing the discretionary function exception contained in Massachusetts General Laws ch. 258, § 10(b). The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion under the doctrine of present execution.

November 13, 2019

Appellate Court Remands Massachusetts Woman’s Personal Injury Case After Second Trial Results in Substantially Lower Verdict

By John C. Manoog III

In a Cape Cod personal injury case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving four elements, each by a preponderance of the evidence. These elements include duty, breach of duty, damages, and causation. Once these elements have been proven, it is up to the jury to determine the amount of money damages to which the plaintiff is entitled in compensation for his or her injuries.

Along the way, both the plaintiff and the defendant are bound by certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence and the civil procedures to be used. If an overzealous legal advocate runs afoul of these rules, it is up to the trial court judge – and ultimately the appeals courts, if further review is taken – to decide whether a new trial is warranted under the circumstances. As was reiterated in a recent case, the question is not merely whether there was wrongdoing by an attorney at trial but, rather, whether the misconduct had such an effect on the jury that a mistrial was required.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered on appeal by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff was a woman who suffered a broken tooth while eating a fast food hamburger in 2011. After determining that there had been a bone fragment in the burger, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, the restaurant where the hamburger was purchased and the company that supplied beef to the restaurant, seeking compensation for the injury to her tooth (which had required nearly two dozen trips to the dentist over a two-year period to resolve).

November 7, 2019

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Worker’s Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim But Says She Should Have Been Allowed to Add FMLA Claim

By John C. Manoog III

Massachusetts workers have certain protections under state and federal law. For instance, most workplace injury cases fall under the provisions of Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws. Generally speaking, if a worker’s injury is covered by workers’ compensation, he or she will not be able to file a negligence lawsuit against the employer or a co-worker. While there are some exceptions to this general rule, most such claims are barred under Massachusetts law. A recent case explored this concept.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appeals court case, the plaintiff was a woman who sued her former employer (a bank) and two former co-workers, alleging that she had suffered personal injuries due to the defendants’ creation of a “toxic work environment” and asserting claims for negligent retention and/or supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion and moved for permission to amend her complaint to assert a claim for retaliation under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The trial court judge dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without ruling on her motion to amend. The plaintiff appealed.

September 30, 2019

Massachusetts Appellate Court Says Lower Tribunal Should Not Have Entered Separate and Final Judgment in Tenant’s Suit Against Landlord and Appliance Store Following Explosion

By John C. Manoog III

It is not unusual for a Cape Cod premises liability, personal injury, or other negligence-based lawsuit to involve multiple claims against multiple defendants. When this happens, a plaintiff may opt to settlement some claims against some parties, while the remaining claims proceed to trial. The procedural hurdles involved in such a situation must be carefully followed, in order to preserve the legal rights of all those involved.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a tenant who sued his landlord and an appliance store, after a stove in his apartment exploded, severely burning the tenant’s right hand. The tenant’s claims against the landlord included negligence, vicarious liability for the store’s negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Against the store, the plaintiff sought compensation for negligence, breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, violation of Massachusetts General Law ch. 93A, and strict liability. Various third-party and cross-claims were also filed in the lawsuit.

The tenant and the store entered into a settlement for $15,000. Without the tenant’s assent, the store filed a motion for entry of a separate and final judgment pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The landlord opposed the motion. After a hearing, the trial court approved the settlement and ordered the entry of a separate and final judgment dismissing the tenant’s claims against the store. The landlord appealed.

August 28, 2019

Non-Resident Was Exempt from Massachusetts PIP Insurance Requirements

By John C. Manoog III

Under Massachusetts law, there are certain requirements for those who operate motor vehicles within the Commonwealth. In a Cape Cod car accident case, a dispute may arise as to whether a driver was in compliance with these laws at the time of the accident.

It should be noted that some of the rules that affect Massachusetts drivers may not apply to those from out of state who just happen to be passing through at the time of a collision. A recent court case explores the relationship between the amount of time that a nonresident has spent in the state and the requirements for certain insurance coverage.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported court case, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a two-car wreck allegedly caused by the defendant motorist’s negligence. The plaintiff’s suit also named the driver with whom he was riding at the time of the crash, her motor vehicle accident insurance company, and the defendant motorist’s insurance carrier as defendants in the suit. Only the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the defendant motorist proceeded to trial, the remaining claims having been dismissed on summary judgment or stayed.

August 8, 2019

Defendants’ Appeal in Slip and Fall Case Dismissed for Failure to File Required Paperwork Within Time Set by Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure

By John C. Manoog III

Hopefully, by now most people know how it important it is to file a claim for damages within the statute of limitations following a Cape Cod accident. However, many individuals may not realize that there can be additional matters of timeliness that must also be complied with, if a case is to be handled as assertively as possible.

One of these important deadlines is the 30-day period for the filing of a notice of appeal following entry of final judgment by a trial court judge. While there are some exceptions to the usual rule, these are few and far between, as the defendants in a recent premises liability lawsuit found out.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who fell while maneuvering a pallet jack from his delivery truck to a loading dock operated by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, his fall aggravated osteoarthritis in hip, requiring him to undergo a total hip replacement. The plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the mechanism that bridged the gap between his trailer and their dock, thus causing the accident and his resulting injuries.
Continue reading