Damages

January 23, 2023

What are common Massachusetts’ determinations of fault for car accidents?

Massachusetts – January 23, 2023

Drivers who are determined to show that another person was at fault for a motor vehicle accident in which they suffered harmful losses may benefit from effective Massachusetts car accident legal representation. Massachusetts is a “no fault” state regarding car accidents, allowing individuals to seek compensation for medical costs and related damages with their own insurance company. As a modified no fault insurance state, accident victims can sue for damages if an injured person shares less than 50 percent of the fault, but a victim’s insurance must pay up to the policy limit before other means are addressed.

Common driver fault.

January 23, 2023

Size violations cause trucking accident at Boston Airport terminals in Massachusetts.

by Neumann Law Group

Massachusetts – January 11, 2023

A tractor-trailer slammed into a low tunnel on the ramp to the arrivals level at Terminals B and C at Boston Logan International Airport on Wednesday afternoon. The incident occurred on a ramp near the central parking facility. Signage on the tunnel indicates that it has a clearance of 11-feet 10-inches. A similar incident involving another tractor-trailer happened in the same location last October when a big rig got stuck under an overpass at Boston Logan International Airport, creating roadblocks. A tractor-trailer is approximately 65-75 feet in length and can weigh up to 80,000 pounds when fully loaded, causing any type of crash between it and another moving vehicle, stationary object, or person to be catastrophic and/or fatal in many cases. Life-changing consequences of a big rig accident may include serious personal injuries and losses such as those that cause permanent damage, scarring, incapacitation through physical or mental injury, bodily deformity and loss of life or limb. Talk to a Massachusetts truck accident lawyer if you have suffered loss in a truck accident.

Size and weight restrictions.

November 2, 2020

How to protect yourself from drivers without insurance or not enough insurance

by Neumann Law Group

michael-jin-ipHlSSaC3vk-unsplash-300x200 Auto 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.

October 26, 2020

Injured by a dangerous product? Things to know about Massachusetts product liability laws.

by Neumann Law Group

prodcuts-200x300 When 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.

January 17, 2020

How one woman’s tragic battle with uterine cancer saved an untold number of women from a similar fate

by Neumann Law Group

FDA-300x221 On May 23, 2017, Dr. Amy J. Reed, an anesthesiologist and mother of six children, passed away in her home at the age of 44. Her life was cut short by an aggressive form of uterine cancer, leiomyosarcoma. For her husband, the tragedy of her early death is entwined with regret and anger, as the two of them fought not only Stage IV leiomyosarcoma, but an intractable profession and the industry which profits from its practice.

At the age of 40, Dr. Reed was diagnosed with uterine fibroids. Fibroids are masses of the smooth muscle cells lining the inside of the uterus. Although fibroids are generally considered benign, their presence can cause serious discomfort and pain in the pelvic area. To treat her condition, Dr. Reed underwent a hysterectomy. She chose to have the procedure performed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston—the hospital is affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, where both Dr. Reed and her husband, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm both held teaching positions.

After her surgery, the tissue was removed, and a biopsy was performed. The tissue contained leiomyosarcoma cells, an extremely aggressive form of uterine cancer. Although the biopsy revealed that the cancer cells had been confined to a very small area within a fibroid, the procedure through which the fibroids were removed seeded malignant cells throughout her abdomen. The dissemination of cancer cells caused her cancer to accelerate to Stage IV. The five-year survival rate for patients diagnosed with Stage IV leiomyosarcoma is only 14%.

January 13, 2020

Further erosion of the ban of lawsuits against gun manufacturers

by Neumann Law Group

Lots-of-Guns-300x200 As I explored in a previous blog, the Protection of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (2005), et seq., (“PLCAA”) has shielded gun manufacturers from suit since its enactment in 2005. The law bars any civil liability action against a firearms dealer or manufacturer, except for certain limited exceptions. My previous blog revolved around the parents of the victims killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, who survived summary judgment on a motion conceived under PLCAA filed by the defendant, Remington Arms Company. Now, the city of Kansas City is bringing a claim against a manufacturer and several firearms dealers, which may further chip away at the Act’s once impenetrable protection.

PLCAA’s protection is broad. 1515 U.S.C. § 7902 provides that “[a] qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court” against a firearms manufacturer or dealer. The definition of a qualified civil liability action is explored in § 7902, which defines the term broadly, encompassing ostensibly all civil claims against licensed gun dealers and manufacturers. However, § 7903(A) identifies certain claims that will not be considered a qualified action.

Contractual disputes or claims for breach of warranty are not qualified actions. § 7903(5)(A)(iv). Neither are claims related to defective design or manufacture of a firearm. § 7903(5)(A)(v). Claims arising out of negligent entrustment, where a manufacturer or a dealer puts a firearm into the hands of someone likely to injure themselves or others, are permitted. § 7903(5)(A)(ii; § 7903(5)(B). Similarly, if a manufacturer or dealer knowingly provides a gun to a person intending to commit a crime of violence or engage in drug trafficking, immunity from suit is not available. § 7903(5)(A)(i).

December 3, 2019

Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit against gun manufacturer proceeds: Supreme Court declines to intervene in Connecticut action

by Neumann Law Group

One of the most horrific mass shootings in the nation’s history occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter killed 20 children, all between the ages of 6 and 7, as well as 6 adults before killing himself. The families of those killed have brought a number of legal actions in response to the devastating losses they sustained on November 30, 2012.

Parents of children killed have brought several legal actions under various legal theories. One of the successful suits was against the shooter’s mother’s estate. Since she was also killed in the rampage, her estate was liable for injuries resulting from her negligent acts that contributed to the killing. The plaintiff’s claimed she negligently kept a Bushmaster AR-15 unsecured, allowing her troubled son access to the weapon. The parties settled for $1.5 million to be divided among the plaintiffs.

One family brought suit against the town and school district, alleging the school was unprepared and the response was insufficient. The trial court dismissed the case in 2018, ruling that the situation was so unexpected, intense, and wildly dangerous that hindsight regarding safety protocols could not be deemed negligent.

December 5, 2018

Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts Car Accident Cases

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Volodymyr Baleha / Shutterstock.com

Each year in Massachusetts there are over 120,000 car accidents. These accidents seriously injure more than 4,000 people and claim upwards of 320 lives per year. Those who have been injured in a Massachusetts car accident may be entitled to monetary compensation for the injuries they have sustained through a personal injury lawsuit against the responsible parties.

While some Massachusetts car accidents are the result of one party’s negligence, it is often the case where the fault is shared between multiple parties. In some situations, the plaintiff is found to have been partly responsible for causing the accident. As a result, courts need a way to determine which plaintiffs should be entitled to recover for their injuries, and how a plaintiff’s own negligence should be factored into that recovery. Thus, Massachusetts lawmakers passed Massachusetts General Law section 85, implementing a system known as modified comparative negligence.

Under a comparative negligence analysis, a plaintiff may pursue a claim for compensation – even if their own negligence contributed to the accident. A “pure” comparative negligence model allows for a plaintiff to pursue a claim regardless of their own percentage of fault. However, under Massachusetts’ modified comparative negligence approach, a negligent plaintiff can recover so long as the plaintiff’s “negligence was not greater than the total amount of negligence attributable to the person or persons against whom recovery is sought.”

November 14, 2018

Massachusetts Court Awards Prejudgment Interest on Entire $8.25 Million Judgment

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: RomanR / Shutterstock.com

Court cases can take a very long time. However, the medical bills, lost wages, and other losses suffered by the victim are still occurring while the victim waits for the trial and subsequent damages. That said, Massachusetts law allows some parties to obtain interest from the date the filed the action until the date of the judgment. This can help to offset some of the costs and losses incurred by plaintiffs while they wait for trial. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard a case that addressed when prejudgment interest has to be paid by defendants.

Massachusetts Law

Massachusetts case law has noted that prejudgment interest is a remedy that is based in state law and applies when state law claims are brought in federal court. When interest begins to accrue, and the kinds of damages that are permitted to accrue interest, depends on a number of factors. Specifically, Massachusetts law says that interest begins to accrue at the time the action is commenced. This gives plaintiffs another reason to bring their claims forward as soon as possible. The interest stops accruing at the time that the final verdict is rendered.

The law specifically requires that the clerk of the court add an additional 12% yearly interest on top of the original damage amount. This is the case even when the total verdict with interest goes beyond the maximum liability allowed by law.