Committed to Justice in Boston and Beyond
Justia Lawyer Rating

shutterstock_738975676-scaledSpeeding is one of the most common causes of Massachusetts car accidents. Speeding occurs when a motorist drives over the posted speed limit or drives too fast for the weather or road conditions. Massachusetts speeding collisions often result in serious and potentially fatal injuries due to the significant forces involved went the cars collide. The faster a car is traveling, the more force it creates upon impact. Additionally, speeding drivers have less time to prevent a crash when they are traveling at accelerated rates.

For instance, recently, a Boston news source reported that the District Attorney identified the teen who died in a speeding accident. When officers arrived at the accident scene, they discovered a mangled car wrapped around a pole. Emergency personnel transported a young girl to a local hospital, and an 18-year-old was pronounced dead at the scene. The vehicle was split in two, and the utility pole cracked, causing a power disruption for several hours. Given the vehicle’s state, local mechanics estimated that the car was likely traveling over 100mph at the time of the accident. Local residents explained that despite the stoplights, people often speed down the stretch of roadway where the accident occurred.

There are many reasons drivers speed; however, these individuals should be held liable for their actions despite the reasons. Drivers often speed because they do not pay attention to posted speed limits or are otherwise distracted. Further, drivers may speed when they are engaged in road rage or emotional situations. Drivers also speed when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Builders work on skyscraper construction
Construction sites are inherently dangerous places that pose significant dangers to construction workers and those in the vicinity. Although many health and safety protocols are in place, many people suffer severe injuries and even death related to Massachusetts construction site accidents. Massachusetts workers’ compensation system limits recovery for employees who suffer injuries at a construction site. However, in many situations, the dangerous condition or circumstances surrounding the accident involve the negligence of an outside party. Construction workers and others who suffer injuries at a construction site should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies after an accident.

Construction is a critical component of the economic and societal growth of an area. As such, those who engage in this crucial industry should receive protection and compensation after an accident. Many construction site injuries result from electrocution, falls, blunt force trauma, burns and exposure to various worksite toxins.

For instance, a national news report recently described a devastating Boston construction site accident. Police responded to a call alerting them to a motor vehicle accident. When they arrived, they discovered that a dump truck hit two people, causing them to fall into a trench. Unfortunately, both individuals were pronounced dead at the scene of the accident.

Scaffod-300x219
Construction sites are some of the most dangerous workplaces in Massachusetts. There are countless dangerous situations in on a construction project. Not only workers are in danger, individuals walking, or even driving by the worksite can be injured as well. Accidents happen all too often.

Construction site injuries are often serious and sometimes fatal. Negligent operation of heavy equipment, falls, or electrocution are just a few life-threatening events that happen on construction sites. Even a small hand tool falling from height can change someone’s life forever with loss of life, loss of limb, or other permanent disability. The impact of a serious injury extends well beyond the worker to their family and dependents.

If you have been injured, you should promptly report the injury to your supervisor, or if you are a self-employed contractor, the general contractor or landowner. Interviewing witnesses in the immediate aftermath when their memory is fresh may be critical to a legal case–experienced attorneys are trained to ask the most important questions in these situations. It is also imperative that you seek medical attention as soon as possible. Delay in medical attention is often used against the injured party at a later date, claiming the injury is faked or not severe. Additionally, the accident should be reported to the appropriate governmental authorities. However, interactions with entities like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, should be handled with care. Legal counsel can help you navigate these meetings.

michael-jin-ipHlSSaC3vk-unsplash-300x200Auto accidents can devastate lives. A collision can lead to death or life altering injuries in the blink of an eye. What happens if the person who has changed your life forever does not have insurance? What if they speed away without a word while you are incapacitated? What if you’ve been severely injured and they have minimum insurance coverage?, Fortunately, there are insurance policies designed for these events.

In Massachusetts, insurers offer two types of coverage options to provide individuals injured in auto accidents a means of recovery when the driver causing the accident is unavailable, uninsured, or underinsured. Ensuring you have enough coverage under both types of policies is imperative to protect you in the event of an accident involving one of these types of drivers.

Uninsured Motorist insurance, referred to as ‘UM’ coverage, is mandatory under Massachusetts General Law c.90, s.34A-34R regarding Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance. If you are injured by a driver that does not carry insurance, which is against the law, your UM coverage will provide you benefits for bodily injury. Similarly, if after an accident, the responsible party drives off before being identified, the UM coverage stands in the shoes of the absent party, paying claims for bodily injuries.

prodcuts-200x300When deciding what product to purchase, the average consumer considers price, effectiveness, or even the product’s branding. The inquiry rarely extends to whether using the product as instructed will cause bodily harm. Typically, using a consumer good, whether it’s a pressure cooker or a jack stand, will not result in injury, but when it does, you may be able to file a product liability lawsuit.

Massachusetts is a strict liability state. You do not have to prove a manufacturer acted negligently in order to successfully sue it for an injury. A plaintiff does not need to prove the company sued is sloppy or careless. The plaintiff must only show that the product caused an injury when used in the manner for which it was intended.

Although a plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, the claim will need to fall under one of several established product liability categories. The three main types of product liability claims are (1) manufacturing defects, (2) design defects, and (3) failure to warn.

Soldier-200x300On July 28, 2020, a Florida federal court ruling breached the central defense against claims certain military earplugs were defective, damaging the ear and causing hearing loss. The lawsuits claim the earplugs were improperly designed, and did not completely block loud noises common to the military, such as gunfire and or the operation of heavy machinery or vehicles. Neumann Law Group has previously written about the earplug litigation, and you can read that article here.

The defendant, 3M, attempted to invoke the ‘government contractor defense,” a doctrine that would relieve it of any liability even if it were proven to have produced and sold a defective product to the military. The Supreme Court articulated the government contractor defense in Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, 487 US 500 (1988), which involved a wrongful death complaint made against a company that produced military helicopters—the plaintiff alleged the escape system in the helicopter was poorly designed, causing the death of a pilot.

The jury in Boyle found that the manufacturer was in fact negligent when it designed the helicopter, but the Supreme Court would eventually uphold an appellate reversal of the verdict. It outlined the strong federal interest in military equipment and concluded those interests outweighed any state law claims, but only when the federal government gave reasonably precise specifications for the equipment, the equipment conformed to the specifications, and the supplier warned the federal government of the danger involved in using the equipment to the best of its knowledge.

lady-justice-statue-wallpapers-1024x768-1-300x225Neumann Law Group believes in justice, not only for our clients and the communities we serve, but for anyone, anywhere. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was brutally murdered by a police officer while a crowd of bystanders begged him to stop. Three fellow officers stood by idly, while a frightened human being narrated his own death. When the video of Officer Derek Chauvin sadistically choking Mr. Floyd to death went viral, America stood witness to an act of depravity—an act so horrendous that even the willfully ignorant could no longer deny the reality of police brutality.
The gruesome scene must be viewed in context. It is easy to see Officer Chauvin as a barbarian, devoid of human compassion and fueled by hatred and racism. Except for those in the fringe holding extremist ideals, every American has denounced Mr. Floyd’s murder. But we cannot pat ourselves on the back for finding the racist and locking him up. We must act, as the videographer bravely did, or we’ll be no better than Chauvin’s fellow officers.
The nation’s problem is not Officer Derek Chauvin; racism runs far deeper than a few bad cops. While the American majority has accumulated wealth, luxury, and security over the centuries, the institutions and policies fostering that growth often did so at the expense of black Americans. Racism was once overt, as enshrined in our constitution. Then came the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which were our first steps of absolution, beginning the process of ending our great evil of slavery. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 took aim at Jim Crow and segregation. However, neither of these steps eradicated hatred. Our sordid history of systemic racism stained the very fabric of our nation. A stubborn, pernicious, and deadly illness.

Employees-300x200A few weeks ago, the global economy rolled forward under its own immense inertia. While concerns of an economic downturn were growing, few suspected the preceding years of expansion would end overnight . . . yet here we are. It wasn’t the business cycle; it wasn’t an overheated housing market; it wasn’t irresponsible financial products. The behemoth was struck down where it stood because workers stopped working. Over the last five weeks, over 26 million people in the United States filed for unemployment assistance. In addition to those who lost their jobs, many employees were sent home to work or are temporarily laid off. What sort of protection do these employees have when restrictions are lifted and companies call them back to the workplace?

Lawmakers are debating when and how to reopen the larger economy—some arguing for a rapid reopening designed to minimize the length of time commerce remains stagnant, while others plea for a cautious reopening focused on minimizing infection rates. Although much depends on the way government loosens the current restrictions, tension between employee safety and the desire to resume normal operations is certain to grow.

Employees may feel powerless when their employers ask them to return to work. Can an employer fire employees who are reluctant to perform certain tasks? Should an employee that suffers from a medical condition that increases the danger of the virus be forced to return upon the employer’s demand? What if a worker has been exposed to the virus during the shutdown? Can employees be required to test in order to return to work?

AndersonNeumann Law Group is accepting new clients who were sexually assaulted by Dr. Robert E. Anderson, university physician at the University of Michigan. Our firm successfully sued Michigan State University on behalf of survivors of the shockingly similar predator, Dr. Larry Nassar. Our firm is committed to advancing the rights of individuals who suffered because the two of the most vaunted educational institutions in America failed to protect the students charged to their care.

Dr. Robert E. Anderson (deceased, 2008), who worked as a physician for the University of Michigan from 1968 through 2003, is at the center of numerous allegations of sexual assault. The university is now the subject of a federal lawsuit, brought by a survivor of his abuse, alleging the school had knowledge of the doctor’s predilections, and rather than protecting the vulnerable students, U-M protected him. The university allowed him to continue his pattern of assaults for several decades.

Survivors describe Anderson’s behavior began during the draft era of the Vietnam War. The first step in being drafted was receiving a physical. Anderson offered to write students a letter stating that the potential draftee was homosexual, a declaration that at the time disqualified an otherwise suitable candidate for compelled military service. However, he demanded sexual favors in return—something that was well known in the Ann Arbor gay community at the time.

Contact Information