Slip and Fall

April 25, 2018

Massachusetts Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based on Exclusivity Provision of Workers’ Compensation Act

Cases involving injuries at one’s workplace can be wrought with many potential complications. For example, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation claim might be met with a denial of benefits on the ground that the “employee” was actually an independent contractor.

Under Massachusetts law, independent contractors are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. However, they may be able to sue their “employer” (the person or business with whom they had a contractual agreement to perform work) for negligence, if the employer’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner caused physical harm to the worker.

Often, a negligence case has the potential for a larger amount of money damages if the plaintiff is successful; a workers’ compensation case, however, has the advantage of not requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault in his or her accident.

January 24, 2018

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Required to Resolve Insurance Dispute Following Slip and Fall Verdict for Plaintiff

By John C. Manoog III

As we go about our daily lives, we often find ourselves on property that we neither own nor control. This can include the hallway of a hotel in which we are staying on vacation, the floor of the supermarket in which we purchase our weekly groceries, and the sidewalk from which we exit our apartment in order to begin our day, as well as many other areas.

When an accident happens due to a property owner’s negligence, the injured person has the burden of proving that the entity that controlled the area in which the accident happened breached the applicable duty of care.

In a case recently considered by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff in an underlying case was successful in proving negligence, but another dispute arose between the insurance company, a property owner, and an independent contractor regarding who was responsible for paying the judgment awarded to the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit arising from the accident.

April 25, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Sides With Homeowners in Premises Liability Case – No Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Summary Judgment Affirmed

By John C. Manoog III

When a person is hurt on another person’s property, he or she has a right to seek compensation through a premises liability lawsuit. Of course, just as in any negligence case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed him or her a duty of care, that the duty of care was breached, that the plaintiff was harmed, and that there was a link of causation between the harm and the breached duty.

In proving his or her case, the plaintiff may introduce several types of evidence, including physical evidence, if applicable. In a recent case, an injured man sought sanctions against the defendant homeowners for their alleged destruction of a ladder that he alleged caused him to fall. He also sought the reversal of an order of summary judgment entered in the defendants’ favor.

February 2, 2017

Massachusetts Court Rules Security Supervisor’s Statement Inadmissible Hearsay in Slip and Fall Case at Mall

By John C. Manoog III

The term “hearsay” is sometimes used in everyday language to mean gossip or an unsubstantiated rumor. However, the term has a very specific meaning within the legal context. In the law, it refers to one person’s testimony about another individual’s statement or words.

Generally, hearsay statements are not admissible in court, but there are some exceptions. In the example above, the defendant’s statement might be admissible as a declaration against interest. It would be up to the trial court to decide whether, under the particular circumstances of the case, the statement would be an exception to the hearsay rule.

January 25, 2017

Massachusetts Federal Court Grants Injured Woman Additional Discovery Time to Prove Personal Jurisdiction Over Premises Liability Defendant’s Parent Company

By John C. Manoog III

Before a court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant in a lawsuit, there must be personal jurisdiction – either general or specific.

General jurisdiction is much broader, subjecting a defendant to suit in the forum state in all matters, even those that have no direct relationship to the forum state. By contrast, specific jurisdiction exists only with regard to the defendant’s forum-based contacts.

November 23, 2016

Massachusetts Landowner Did Not Owe Duty to Repair Defective Sidewalk or Warn Others of Danger – Halbach v. Normandy Real Estate Partners

By John C. Manoog III

There are four components in a basic negligence lawsuit: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Whether a duty exists in a given situation is usually a question of law to be resolved by the court.

Recently, a Massachusetts appeals court was called upon to resolve the issue of whether a landowner owed a duty to fix a defective public sidewalk or, alternatively, to warn those in the vicinity of the problem.

November 10, 2016

Appellate Court Finds No Reason to Grant New Trial in Massachusetts Negligence Case – Murray v. Copley Plaza Hotel Operating Company

By John C. Manoog III

Have you ever wondered what an appellate court takes into consideration when deciding an appeal?

The answer is that it depends. The fact is that many issues are possible subjects of an appeal. In a recent case, the issues included the admissibility of certain testimony and demonstrative evidence, as well as whether a new trial should have been granted, due to allegedly newly discovered evidence.

October 26, 2016

Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Defense Verdict, Despite “Whopper” Told by Defendant’s Representative in Deposition – Wright v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc.

By John C. Manoog III

In order to obtain a jury verdict in a negligence case, including a case arising from an accident at an amusement park, fair, or carnival, the plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant owed him or her a duty of care and breached that duty, but also that the defendant’s breach of duty was the cause of the damages complained of by the plaintiff.

Recently, an appellate court in Massachusetts reviewed a jury’s determination that the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit had failed to prove the issue of proximate cause in her case seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a bounce house ride.

October 12, 2016

Premises Liability Verdict in Favor of Deceased Pub Patron’s Family is Affirmed by Massachusetts Appeals Court – Bernier v. Smitty’s Sports Pub, Inc.

By John C. Manoog III

Landowners and business operators have certain legal duties to those who come onto their property for business purposes. This includes the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.

However, those who enter another party’s property unlawfully are not necessarily owed the same duty of care. While the landowner does not have the right to intentionally or recklessly harm a trespasser, a trespasser cannot recover damages from a landowner for injuries suffered due to mere negligence on the landowner’s part.

Because of this important distinction, disputes can arise in premises liability actions regarding the injured person’s status as a business invitee or a trespasser.

September 21, 2016

Federal Court in New York Finds that Personal Jurisdiction and Venue of Premises Liability Case Are in Massachusetts – Bonkowski v. HP Hood, LLC

By John C. Manoog III

In order to adjudicate a claim, a court must have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue. If subject matter jurisdiction is not present, the only remedy is dismissal of the case because the court lacks the authority to hear the case.

With regard to personal jurisdiction and venue, however, there is also the possibility of a transfer of the case to a more appropriate forum. This is especially true in the federal courts.

Recently, a corporation with deep ties to Massachusetts challenged the jurisdiction and venue of a lawsuit filed against it in a New York federal court.