Personal Injury

October 23, 2020

Federal Court in Massachusetts Resolves Insurance Coverage Dispute Regarding Electric Boom Lift Injury at Trade Show

As important as it is in a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit to be able to prove that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, this is only one of several steps in pursuing fair compensation. Additionally, it is important that the plaintiff understand, to the fullest extent possible under the law, the insurance coverage that may be available to the various parties to the lawsuit.

Sometimes, insurance coverage issues become part of the plaintiff’s suit. They may, however, be the source of a separately filed case.

Such was the case in a recent matter arising from an accident at a trade show. Fortunately for the injured individual, the court found that liability coverage was available for the injured man’s accident.

October 15, 2020

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Defendant Who Experienced Seizure Before Causing Car Crash

By John C. Manoog III

Cape Cod car accident cases require the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached the applicable duty of care and that this breach of care was the proximate cause of the damages for which the plaintiff seeks compensation. Generally speaking, a defendant who crashes her car into an innocent motorist will probably be found to have violated the duty to keep a proper lookout.

However, there are exceptions to this rule. The defendant’s liability hinges on whether he or she failed to act in a reasonably prudent manner, hence causing the accident. There are several factors that can come into play in determining whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable.

Although the issue does not come up very often, it is possible that the defendant may be able to avoid liability by proving that he or she was incapable of acting in a reasonably prudent manner. An example would be a motorist who experiences a sudden medical emergency that causes him or her to lose control of his or her vehicle. While such an event will not always relieve the defendant of responsibility for an accident, there is a good chance that it could. After all, the purpose of negligence law is to encourage individuals to act reasonably. When a medical emergency arises, this may not be possible.

October 9, 2020

Nursing Home Resident’s Complaint Seeking to Assert Seldom Used Equitable Remedy Reinstated by Massachusetts Appeals Court

By John C. Manoog III

In a typical Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to recover monetary compensation for damages by asserting a claim of negligence. There are four basic elements to the tort of negligence (duty, breach of duty, damages, and proximate causation).

The plaintiff has the duty to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. This requires him or her to convince the jury that the evidence weighs more in his or her favor than in the opponent’s (visualize a tipping of the scales of justice, if you will).

There are other possible remedies that can arise from an alleged act of negligence, including what was described by an appellate court as “a seldom used equitable remedy” in a case filed by a nursing home resident in 2018. The appellate court has now weighed in on the dismissal of the woman’s “complaint for discovery.”

September 30, 2020

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Rejects Breach of Contract Suit Against Hospital, Holding that Claim Should Have Been Pursued as Medical Malpractice Instead

By John C. Manoog III

When a patient is dissatisfied with treatment received from a doctor, hospital, or other medical provider, he or she may have a claim for medical malpractice. An experienced Cape Cod medical malpractice attorney can explain the process of asserting such a claim.

In some instances, there may be the possibility of some other type of legal course, as well. However, such situations are the exception rather the rule.

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. In order to prevail on a claim for malpractice against an allegedly negligent health care provider, the plaintiff must be able to present proof that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care and that this was the proximate cause of the damages for which the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation.

September 22, 2020

Federal District Court Holds that Massachusetts Woman’s Malpractice Case Against the Government Lacked Jurisdiction

By John C. Manoog III

In order for a Cape Cod medical malpractice case to be filed in a particular court, there must be subject matter jurisdiction. Most such cases are filed in state court, but sometimes there may be jurisdiction in federal court.

One such situation arises when the person who injured the plaintiff was an employee of the federal government. Generally speaking, the government is immune from lawsuits, but there are special exceptions in these types of cases.

Of course, the government has teams of attorneys whose job is to make sure that only qualifying cases are allowed to proceed. Just like other defendants, the government has a right to defend itself in court, even at the pre-trial stage with regard to jurisdictional issues.

September 15, 2020

Court Affirms Dismissal of Former College Student’s Massachusetts Negligence Lawsuit Against University Following Alleged Assault

By John C. Manoog III

The concept of negligence law is born of the idea that we each owe certain duties to one another. This includes not only individuals and businesses but also branches of the government. It can also include non-profit organizations and, as was the situation in a recent case, colleges and universities.

Some duties are general in nature, such as the duty that motorists owe one another to keep a proper lookout while driving. Duties can sometimes be more specific, depending on special knowledge or control by one party or the other.

One thing that is sure, however, is that no one owes anyone else the duty to prevent any and all harm that might befall him or her. Such a notion would be very unfair, of course. Instead, the question of duty is more often resolved based on an inquiry into whether the harm was foreseeable and whether the defendant could have prevented such with reasonable efforts.

September 10, 2020

Federal District Court in Massachusetts Holds that Jurisdiction Outside the United States is More Convenient Forum for Boating Accident Case

By John C. Manoog III

One of the first considerations in a personal injury lawsuit in Massachusetts, such as a negligence claim arising from a Cape Cod boating accident, is the forum in which the plaintiff’s claim will be filed. Often, there is but a single possibility for the filing of such a case, so the inquiry is a relatively simple one.

However, some situations lend themselves to the possibility of jurisdiction in more than one court – a state court or a federal court, perhaps. Sometimes, two states may arguably both have jurisdiction over a given case.

Rarely – but sometimes – two different nations may have jurisdiction of a particular lawsuit. In such a situation, it is up to the court system to decide which nation’s court will provide the more convenient forum based on the situation at hand.

August 31, 2020

Summary Judgment to Insurance Company on Claim for Indemnification in Massachusetts Case Involving Injuries from Altercation Held Erroneous

By John C. Manoog III

When it comes to the ultimate outcome of a Cape Cod personal injury case, the availability of liability insurance is one of the most important factors to be considered. Assuming that there is a policy of insurance that covers the occurrence at issue, another important consideration is the policy limits of such coverage.

In the absence of adequate liability insurance, the plaintiff’s options for recovering a judgment against the defendant are limited. While the plaintiff may have a right to execute the judgment against any property owned by the defendant and/or any wages that he or she earns in the future, it may take a very, very long time to satisfy a judgment – if it is ever satisfied.

Of course these issues are meaningless if the plaintiff is unable to prove his or her case in court, so it is important that someone who has suffered personal injuries due to another person’s careless or reckless conduct consult an attorney who can help him or her build a case that will convince the jury of his or her right to money damages. Without evidence that preponderates in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant’s liability insurance is irrelevant.

July 14, 2020

Massachusetts Appeals Court Sides with Insured in Third Party Claim as to Insurance Coverage in Lead Poisoning Case

By John C. Manoog III

In most Cape Cod personal injury lawsuits, the main issue is whether the defendant should be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and, if so, the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled for his or her medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages. The defendant’s insurance company is somewhat of a “silent partner” in the case, insomuch as it pays the defendant’s legal expenses and, when all is said and done, writes the check that satisfies the jury’s verdict but is otherwise out of view.

In some cases, however, the insurance company’s participation is more direct. In a recent case, the defendants filed a third-party action against their insurance company, which they averred had wrongfully denied a claim that had been filed against them.

After the original claim between the defendants and the parties who sought compensation for certain personal injuries was settled, the defendants’ claim against the insurance company proceeded to trial – twice. After the second trial, the insurance company sought appellate review of the decision entered against it in the court below.

June 26, 2020

Federal District Court in Massachusetts Is Called Upon to Determine Proper Forum for Cross-Claims in Products Liability Lawsuit

By John C. Manoog III

In a Cape Cod products liability case, there are likely to be several defendants. This is because several different parties in the chain of distribution – from the manufacturer to the wholesale distributor to the retailer – can potentially be liable to the plaintiff.

While it might seem simpler to name only a single defendant, this is rarely wise. Naming multiple defendants can help ensure that the plaintiff ultimately receives what he or she is due if there is a favorable judgment, even if one or more of the defendants proves to be insolvent or has limited resources for satisfying the plaintiff’s claim.

When there are several defendants, each of whom could potentially be held liable for a plaintiff’s personal injuries, it is not unusual for there to be cross-claims between the defendants as each attempts to limit its own monetary outlay to the plaintiff. Experienced product injury lawyers are well-acquainted with these tactics and understand that this “infighting” between the defendants cannot stand in the way of the injured party’s quest for justice.