Recent settlements
  • $1,560,000.00 Motor Vehicle Accident
  • $2,200,000.00 Wrongful Death
  • $1,250,000.00 Motorcycle Accident
Free Consultation • No fee unless succesful • we will travel to you

By

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.

Continue reading

By

In a Massachusetts wrongful death lawsuit, there are likely to be many issues. If the loved one’s death was caused by an act of negligence, some of these issues will include duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

For a plaintiff to be successful on the merits of his or her case, he or she must provide convincing, competent, and legally admissible evidence on each of these issues. Unfortunately, simply offering testimony from witnesses may not be enough, as there are rules of evidence that determine what is, and what is not, legally admissible in court. In some situations, an appellate court may be called upon to determine whether these matters were ruled upon properly during the trial of a wrongful death lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the personal representative of the estate of man who died in a car accident. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendants, seeking to recover compensation for the loss of his decedent. The case was tried to a jury. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict and filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and he appealed.

Continue reading

By

In a Cape Cod car accident case, the negligent motorist’s insurance company has certain obligations, including the duty to make a fair settlement offer if liability is clear. Of course, the question of what exactly constitutes fair offer can be subject to debate.

If, for example, an offer is refused and a jury trial results in a substantially higher verdict, the plaintiff has a good argument that the insurance company did not proceed in good faith. When the opposite happens – the jury returns a very modest verdict when compared to the insurer’s settlement offer – the plaintiff may have a difficult time convincing the court that the insurance company acted unfairly.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unpublished) case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed a personal injury lawsuit, on her own behalf and on behalf of her two minor children, against the defendants, an allegedly negligent driver, his employer, and their insurance company. Her claims included negligence, infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A and 176D claim. The plaintiff’s claims against the insurance company were stayed while the bodily injury claims against the remaining defendants proceeded to a trial by jury in 2015. At trial, the defendants admitted liability, and jury awarded damages of $10,260 to the plaintiffs; the verdict was affirmed on appeal.

Continue reading

By

Among the most important protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution is the freedom from unlawful searches and seizures. Of course, the concept of what is, or is not, an unreasonable search or seizure is subject to much interpretation.

In a Cape Cod operating under the influence (or “OUI”) case, the question of whether a search and seizure was legal often hinges on whether the arresting officer acted in accordance with the law in stopping the defendant – in other words, did he or she have probable cause for the stop?

If a reviewing court determines that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to stopping the defendant, it is likely that any evidence obtained during the stop (and any search and seizure executed in accordance therewith) will be deemed inadmissible at trial.

Continue reading

By

The vast majority of Cape Cod car accident lawsuits are settled out of court. In most cases, the parties’ respective automobile accident liability insurance companies are part of the settlement process and, consequently, are bound by the terms of the settlement.

Sometimes, however, instances arise in which an insurance company may not be part of the settlement negotiations in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit arising from an automobile accident. A recent case explored such a situation and gave instructions for how such matters are to be handled in similar circumstances in the future.

The case at bar differed from the “typical” case in one important respect: one of the primary issues in the underlying litigation was whether the incident giving rise to the suit was an accident or whether it was the result of an intentional act. Importantly, the insurer was not obligated to make certain payments for an intentional act but was obligated to pay for damages arising from an act of negligence.

Continue reading

By

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.

Continue reading

By

There are many instances in which life can change in a split second – a car accident, an injury at work, or, perhaps most unsettling of all, being arrested. In any of these events, it is important to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible, but this especially true in the case of being accused of a crime by a police officer. A Cape Cod criminal defense attorney can explain your legal rights and help you defend yourself in court. In the meantime, it is very important that you not speak to police about your case. You do have the right to remain silent, and anything you voluntarily say can be used to convict you later on.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in a recent appellate case was a man whose mother was pulled over allegedly failing to display a valid inspection sticker. As the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that the defendant – who was a passenger in the right front seat – was not wearing a seat belt. Intending to ticket the defendant for this offense, the officer asked the defendant for his identification. As the defendant was giving the officer his identification, a dark-colored object, which the officer believed could possibly be a weapon, fell between the car seat and the console. After backup arrived, the officer ordered the defendant to step out of the car, arrested him on unrelated but outstanding warrants, and searched the vehicle. A loaded .38 caliber snub-nosed revolver was found.

The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. At trial, the defendant’s mother testified that the gun was hers and that the defendant had no knowledge that it was in the vehicle. Nevertheless, the defendant was convicted on both charges. He appealed, alleging that the motion judge should have granted his motion to suppress the firearm, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant was aware that the firearm in question was loaded, the prosecutor made comments in his closing argument that created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge did not instruct the jury that the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was loaded.

Continue reading

By

There are many circumstances that can lead to a Cape Cod slip and fall or premises liability lawsuit. While many such cases involve adults, there can also be situations in which a minor child is injured on another’s property. As with other types of negligence lawsuits, the plaintiff in such a case has the burden of proving that the defendant breached a duty of care, thus proximately causing damages to the injured party.

If you or your child has been hurt by a negligent property owner, you should speak to an attorney about your case as soon as possible, as there is a statute of limitations that limits the time during which you may take legal action.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who brought suit as the parent and the next friend of her a minor child who was allegedly injured as a result of a fall from a zip line that the defendants had installed in their backyard. Because the zip line did not have a seat, the child’s father held him up by the hips and guided him for a few feet before letting him go. The child traveled a short distance and then lost his grip. Reportedly, his father grabbed him as he was falling, but the child’s arm hit the ground and was fractured so severely that several surgeries were required. In their negligence claim, the plaintiffs focused on the defendants’ failure to install a safety seat attachment to the zip line, arguing that this failure rendered the zip line unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants had failed to warn the child of the danger of the zip line.

Continue reading

By

Under the common law, the “king could do no wrong” – and hence was not subject to a finding of liability in court for negligent or reckless conduct. In modern times, the concept of sovereign immunity can apply to a government, just as it did to a monarchy. Citizens still do not have the “right” to sue a city, state, or even the federal government under the principles of sovereign immunity.

However, most governmental entities have passed laws that allow themselves to be sued, at least in some circumstances. However, there are almost always limitations on such suits, including those involving a Cape Cod wrongful death claim.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported case, the plaintiff was a special administratrix who filed suit against the defendant city public health commission, asserting a cause of action for wrongful death and failure to supervise and/or train employees. According to allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, the decedent was placed into an ambulance that was under the control of the defendant commission after staff members at an inn called 911 and reported that the decedent was experiencing suicidal thoughts. The defendant reportedly disregarded its usual practice of driving a suicidal patient to the hospital with a police escort; when the defendant’s employees opened the ambulance door, the decedent ran into the street, laid down, and was killed by a motor vehicle moving through traffic.

Continue reading

By

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.

Continue reading