Personal Injury

December 3, 2019

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

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.

May 9, 2019

Joint Liability in Massachusetts Negligence Claims

by Neumann Law Group

Massachusetts personal injury cases involving more than one potentially liable party can become complicated when it comes to determining each party’s liability. A defendant’s negligence does not need to be the sole cause of a plaintiff’s injury for the defendant to be legally responsible for the plaintiff’s injury. As long as a defendant’s negligence contributed as a proximate cause of the p

photo credit: Shutterstock.com/osobystist

laintiff’s injury, the defendant is liable. In a Massachusetts negligence case, joint liability is appropriate when two or more parties negligently contribute to the injury of another through their acts, which operate concurrently, in a way that the damages are inseparable. In such cases, the parties are jointly and severally liable.

January 30, 2019

Massachusetts Appeals Court Considers Definition of “Household Member” Under Insurance Policy

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Africa Studio / Shutterstock.com

Massachusetts personal injury victims can suffer devastating consequences if an insurance company rejects their claims for coverage. In a recent case before the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was considered a “household member” in order to be eligible for coverage.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a serious car accident while he was a passenger in a vehicle. The plaintiff was hospitalized for four days, and incurred medical bills of more than $40,000, as well as a long-term disability. The plaintiff accepted a settlement with the driver for the full extent of the driver’s insurance policy of $100,000.

Evidently, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff lived with his girlfriend and their minor son in a home with his girlfriend’s mother and stepfather. The mother and stepfather had an insurance policy that covered two cars used by residents of the plaintiff’s home. The policy provided $250,000 of coverage per person in underinsured motorist coverage for damages caused by a person who does not have sufficient insurance to cover someone’s damages. The plaintiff filed a claim under this policy.

July 2, 2018

Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds Public Housing Development Property Owner Liable for Damages from Injury

by Neumann Law Group

A resident of a public housing development in Framingham was seriously injured after slipping and falling on the stairs. He filed a claim for damages against the Framingham Housing Authority, Musterfield Place, LLC, (a “controlled affiliate” of the housing authority), and the managing agent of the property. The owner and managing agent of the property filed a partial summary judgment motion that would classify them as public employers. Under the Tort Claims Act, public employers are only liable for damages up to $100,000. The court denied this motion and instead classified the manager and owners of the building as “controlled affiliates.” As “controlled affiliates” they are not public employers and thus do not get the benefit of the damage cap. If you are injured at your apartment building or at another location, you should contact a skilled Massachusetts premises liability attorney as soon as possible to help represent you. This decision allows injured people the ability to collect the full damages they are due for their injuries.

Facts of the Case

The building that Plaintiff lived in had been identified as being in need of rehabilitation in 2009. As the housing authority did not have the money themselves to fix the building, private investors bought in to the property partially to get the tax credits associated with the investment. In order to help raise money for low income housing, the housing authority allows these investors to buy and sell the tax credits that they have no use for, as they are not subject to federal taxes. These investors are then deemed “controlled affiliates.” A controlled affiliate is an entity that owns and manages public housing. In return for the tax credits, the affiliates must keep the property affordable for low and moderate income renters for 15 years.

December 18, 2017

Six-Figure Jury Verdict Against Asbestos Manufacturer Set Aside by Connecticut Supreme Court

by Neumann Law Group

A six-figure jury verdict against the manufacturer of an adhesive product called FM-37 was recently set aside by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The plaintiff sought to recover damages under the Connecticut’s Product Liability Act (CPLA) for the wrongful death of the decedent, claiming negligence and strict liability. The plaintiff contended that the decedent was exposed during his employment to an asbestos-containing product (FM-37) manufactured by the defendant and that the exposure contributed to his contraction of deadly mesothelioma. This type of theory is also relevant to cases brought by Massachusetts wrongful death plaintiffs.Malignant mesothelioma is a rare cancer that usually forms on the protective lining of the lungs and abdomen. The disease has no definitive cure, but advancements in conventional treatments along with emerging therapies are helping patients improve their survival rate. Incidence rates still hover around 3,000 new cases each year in the U.S., according to a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, scientific research and increased awareness are leading to earlier diagnoses and improved treatments. Exposure to asbestos remains the leading cause of mesothelioma. Asbestos, a mineral fiber, can release toxic chemicals in the air if improperly handled.

Asbestos litigation has been going on for decades, ever since the substance was linked to mesothelioma. Individuals affected by this disease have sued companies that made products containing asbestos. Last month, for example, a Massachusetts developer agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit over accusations that workers improperly removed and disposed of asbestos. According to the lawsuit, unlicensed workers were allowed to remove materials containing asbestos without taking proper safety precautions. The lawsuit also alleged the company threw away unsealed asbestos near apartment buildings.

Also last month, the Montana Supreme Court announced that hundreds of asbestos cases could proceed through a special “Asbestos Claims Court.” The claims can include personal injuries or wrongful deaths arising out of an asbestos-related disease alleged to come from vermiculite mining, processing, or the transfer, storage, installation, or removal of a product containing vermiculite. The formation of the court was approved by the Montana legislature in 2001.

September 21, 2017

State Appeals Court Upholds Ruling for Plaintiff Following Hospital Slip & Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A Connecticut resident filed suit for negligence after injuring herself while walking to the Danbury Hospital parking lot. She prevailed during a bench trial, and the defendant appealed. The Connecticut Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, which may be interesting to Massachusetts slip and fall claimants as well.In June 2010, the victim and her daughter were visiting the victim’s husband, who was being treated at Danbury Hospital. After their visit, they exited the hospital’s main building and walked onto a walkway leading toward the parking lot. They were familiar with this walkway, since they had made this same trip several times in the past.

While they were walking along the pathway, the victim hit something with her foot and fell to the ground. As a result of the fall, she sustained injuries to her right foot and ankle. It later was determined that she had broken her big toe and damaged the fifth metatarsal of her right foot. Within minutes of the fall, she was taken to Danbury’s emergency room, where she was examined and treated for her injuries. As a result of her fall, she experienced chronic lower back pain from a protruded disc that required several epidural steroid injections and, eventually, a surgical decompression procedure. The lower court ruled for the victim following a bench trial.

On appeal, the defendant first claimed that the trial court erroneously found that the defect in the walkway that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was a reasonably foreseeable hazard. The appeals court disagreed, reasoning that the trial court reviewed reports prepared by members of the defendant’s security and medical staff, as well as photographs depicting the alleged defect and the surrounding area, and it heard the testimony of the plaintiff and her daughter describing the fall and the defect. The trial court therefore had before it adequate evidence of a broken slab of pavement that contained a chip in a well-traveled walkway that had existed for a sufficient period of time. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the findings related to this claim were not clearly erroneous, and the conclusions were not unreasonable.

September 7, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Car Accident Case

by Neumann Law Group

A woman filed suit on behalf of her daughters, based on a a Massachusetts car accident that occurred in December 2010. The defendant was driving a tractor-trailer owned by the co-defendant when he rear-ended the plaintiff’s car. The defendants conceded liability, and the trial proceeded strictly on the issue of damages. The jury returned a verdict of $6,749.29 to the woman, $6,414.70 to one daughter, and no damages to the other daughter. The plaintiffs moved to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial, both of which were denied.The plaintiffs appealed, arguing: (1) the trial judge abused her discretion in refusing to continue the trial when co-counsel withdrew after jury empanelment; (2) the trial judge wrongfully excluded the plaintiffs’ revised medical records; (3) the trial judge wrongfully admitted certain medical records offered by the defendants; and (4) there was ineffective assistance of counsel. The Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The appeals court first considered the plaintiffs’ claim that the judge abused her discretion in denying their motion for a continuance and “forcing” them to trial without adequate assistance of counsel. After jury empanelment, “lead counsel’s” renewed motion to withdraw was permitted due to what he described as an ethical conflict. The judge then stated her intention to dismiss the case for want of prosecution if the plaintiffs did not go forward without him. The plaintiffs did not object to the judge’s decision at that time. Since they raised the issue for the first time on appeal, the appeals court explained that the argument was waived.

Either way, the court found that it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to require the plaintiffs to go forward with their two remaining attorneys, who had been counsel of record from the beginning of the case and who also had been actively involved throughout discovery and pretrial proceedings. The judge concluded that since the plaintiff’s behavior had triggered the ethical issue that prompted the attorney’s withdrawal, she should not be rewarded with a continuance.

July 3, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Ruling For Defendants Following Apartment Slip & Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff was injured after she tripped on a bent stake jutting onto the walkway outside her condominium unit. She thereafter filed suit, alleging that the owner of the complex, Huntington Wood Condominium Trust, and the contractor responsible for snow removal, The Green Company Landscape & Irrigation, Inc., negligently maintained a hazardous condition that caused her injury. The superior court disagreed, finding that she failed to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of a supposedly dangerous condition. The judge therefore granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed, and the Massachusetts Court of Appeals affirmed.She alleged that in mid-March 2010, she injured herself when she tripped on a stake that poked out onto the walkway next to her condo unit. She passed that stake approximately three times that day before falling. She noticed that it was bent but did not realize it was jutting out onto the walkway. In the evening, she walked to her car. When she returned from her car, she tripped over the stake.

June 14, 2017

State Supreme Court Permits Roofing Injury Lawsuit to Move Forward

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to his grandfather, the defendant in a negligence action. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by concluding that the defendant owed him no duty and that the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend his complaint to add a new liability theory. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded.The defendant, Hector, was an experienced construction worker. In 2011, he asked his son, Ricky, about replacing the roof of Hector’s office. Ricky approached his son, Joseph, about working on the project. Joseph had also worked in construction and was an experienced roofer. According to Joseph’s deposition testimony, Ricky supplied the tools, equipment, and materials for the roof job.

May 17, 2017

Pennsylvania Woman Settles Federal Lawsuit Following Elevator Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A Philadelphia woman who filed a federal lawsuit following an elevator accident recently settled with the defendants. Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge announced the action was dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to an agreement.The plaintiff sued the elevator company, the property manager of the building, and the building’s owner. The amount of the settlement was undisclosed.