Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

Good news for Massachusetts bicycle riders! Legislative changes have finally come which help protect bicyclists, and which place greater requirements on drivers of cars and trucks to prevent injuries to bicycle riders.

Bicycle riders are at risk when riding on the road for a number of reasons. First, motorists are often not looking for bicycles when driving; they are looking for larger vehicles, such as other cars or trucks, and they often simply fail to see bicycles (and the same is true, or course, for motorcycles). The risk is magnfied because cyclists are largely unprotected from serious injury if there is a crash.

The new law targets the most common types of accidents, and places new, explicit requirements on drivers to prevent these accidents. These are some of the most common accidents:

• Drivers try to pass a bicycle when there is not enough room
• Drivers cut back into the lane where the bicycle is operating, cutting off the cyclist
• Drivers overtake cyclists, then turn right, right in front of them, cutting them off
• Drivers fail to recognize that bicycles are traveling to the right of traffic--which is perfectly legal--and turn left in front of them, failing to yield the right of way
• Drivers fail to recognize the cyclists passing them on the right, and move to the right or turn to the right without checking blind spots or mirrors
• Drivers and passengers fail to recognize approaching bicycle riders, and open their doors directly in the path of the bicyclist

The new laws, which are part of Chapter 525 of the Acts of 2008 (click for full text of enacted statute), prohibit all of these acts, and create fines for drivers who fail to follow the law.

Hopefully the new legislation will help reduce the incidence of serious injury and wrongful death caused by collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles.

For more information on the legislative changes, please see our article, Good News for Bicyclists in Massachusetts: Important Changes in Massachusetts Statutes Favor Cyclists--Drivers Must Use Greater Care. 

More Information

What the New Bicycle Law Means for You:  A Practicle Guide.  MassBike 

Continue reading "Massachusetts Changes Laws to Increase Bicycle Safety, Reduce Bicycle Accidents" »

The winter of 2009 has already beaten the law of averages when it comes to total snowfall. But this year has distinguished itself even more as the winter of ice storms. Those storms have left thousands without power, some for weeks on end. And all of that ice has led to spikes in admissions to emergency rooms around Massachusetts for broken ankles, fractured wrists, hip fractures, and back injuries.

So many people wonder, who can be held responsible if you slip and fall on a patch of ice or snow? Believe it or not, in Massachusetts personal injury cases caused by slips and falls on ice or snow are very difficult cases, and often do not lead to liability. 

For one thing, the common law in Massachusetts precludes premises liability for accidents which occur as the result of natural accumulations of ice or snow. This means that if your neighbor fails to shovel or the office downtown leaves some ice after an ice storm, then the landowner is probably not liable. The same is usually true even if the landowner has moved only some of the snow or ice which had naturally accumulated.

The situation changes when snow is moved into piles. Piles which obstruct your passage on sidewalks, walkways, or driveways can be found to be unnatural accumulations. Another uncommon unnatural accumulation is the discharge of water from drain pipes or gutters onto walkways.  Other alterations to property which cause water to form ice in channels or puddles may also lead to liability.

Massachusetts also has strict notice requirements after an accident caused by snow or ice. The landowner must be notified within thirty days, or the landowner may have a legal defense of prejudice due to lack of notice.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Ice Storms Leave Residents Slipping and Sliding" »

In a case decided late last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a Massachusetts company would be permitted to bring a second lawsuit against its insurance company seeking damages for unfair and deceptive practices, a violation of G.L. c. 93A, Sec. 11. In the case, Andrew Robinson International, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 547 F.3d 48 (2008), the court determined that the earlier declaratory judgment action in a state court action was not a bar to the second action, which sought monetary damages against the insurance company.

The first case between the parties was a delcaratory judgment action. The plaintiff sought a determination that the insurance company was required to pay for the damages suffered when the business premises were contaminated with lead-laden dust from a remodeling project in a neighboring office. The insurance company argued the claim was barred by a pollution exclusion clause. The state court disagreed, and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The insurer paid.

The second action sought damages for unfair and deceptive acts in violation of c. 93A, frequently referred to as a bad faith insurance claim. Hartford removed the case to Federal court (diversity jurisdiction) and then moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was improper to allow the plaintiffs to bring a second suit. Hartford argued that the claim was barred under principles of res judicata, and that plaintiffs could not split their claims.

The Appeals Court found no Massachusetts case directly on point, so did its best to determine what Massachusetts would likely do. It found that the action was not barred, carving out a special exception for declaratory judgments. Ordinarily, however, when claims arise from the same transaction and occurrence, a plaintiff is wise to bring all claims in a single action; the exception saved the day for these plaintiffs.

Read More on this case: First Circuit Court of Appeals Allows c. 93A Case to Proceed Against Insurance Company; Previous State Suit Did Not Bar Claim 

As the budget crisis forces deep cuts in state spending, and as economic pressures are driving more and more people from their jobs and their homes, the need could never be greater for a fully funded Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC). That point was strongly made when over 800 lawyers from around Massachusetts filled the State House to lobby their state representatives and senators during the annual Walk to the Hill for Civil Legal Aid.

The message was a simple one: Keep the funding for MLAC the same as last year, a total of $11,070.424. The budget allocation funds programs for general legal support, battered women's legal assistance, disability benefits advocacy, and Medicare advocacy.

These investments more than pay for themselves. The programs help unlock Federal funding for individuals entitled to disability and Medicare benefits. They help battered women when they are facing their deepest crises. And they help people with the full range of everyday problems, the greatest of which is staying in their apartments or house when they are facing improper eviction or foreclosure.

In a word, the programs work. They are the proverbial "ounce of prevention" which save many millions more if people are unable to get medical care, benefits, or proper housing.

Level funding for MLAC is a reasonable request, even in this year of fiscal restraint. Other programs which support MLAC, such as the Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) are providing less funding, due to the fact that interest rates are so low. Even with just level funding, MLAC will be forced to cut back some programs.

The lawyers at Breakstone, White and Gluck strongly support the funding of MLAC. Present during the Walk to the Hill were attorneys Marc Breakstone and David White (pictured above), who paid visits to their state senators and representatives, all of whom pledged their support for civil legal aid.

What You Can Do: Keep an eye on the budget this year. The Governor's budget proposal is due out this week. Contact your state senator and state representative and ask him or her to support level funding for Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation in Fiscal Year 2010.

For more information, complete the contact form on the right, or contact the organizations below.

More Information

Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, 617-367-8544
Equal Justice Coalition, 617-391-5633

If you are traveling on an airplane, you can be comforted by the fact that the pilots and co-pilots run through pre-flight and pre-landing checklists designed to prevent accidents and injuries. So wouldn't you think the same techniques would be used in hospitals for critical surgical procedures? Well. . . not necessarily.

In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine today, researchers demonstrated that the use of a simple checklist for surgical procedures cuts the rate of complication by 36%. The checklist reduced the rate of infection, wrong site surgery, the need for re-operation, post-operative complications, and death. The study demonstrated improvements in each of the eight countries involved in the study. If implemented properly, the number of injuries and wrongful deaths caused by medical malpractice would decline.

The authors report that roughly half of surgical complications are avoidable. The authors utilized a 19-step checklist to improve verification, to require surgical team members to introduce themselves and share patient concerns, to verify antibiotic coverage, and to document concerns regarding the post-operative recovery period.  The first part of the list is designed to reduce wrong patient, wrong operation, wrong site complications which are still remarkably common. Requiring the team members to introduce themselves to each other increased teamwork and also reduced mistakes.

With such obvious improvements so readily available, one would think that hospitals and doctors would be jumping quickly onto this bandwagon. Not necessarily. Why not? Would a little more paperwork and a little extra time cut into profits? When patients' lives, health and safety are at stake, one would hope that hospitals would instead rush to implement these guidelines immediately. Implementing checklists are clearly one way to reduce injuries, death, and medical malpractice claims.

What you can do: The 19-step checklist has been been published on-line by the World Health Organization. Print a copy for yourself, and if you are going to be having surgery, make sure your doctors use either your form, or are already using one just like it.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Patients Should Demand Surgical Safety Checklists" »

A crane collapse in August 2008, which occurred in Quincy, Massachusetts, caused one wrongful death and three other people injured. After an extensive investigation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), issued citations to three of the companies involved in the crane

dismantling process. With today's pressure to underbid competition, many people are wondering if those cost savings mean a compromise of safety on the job site.

At the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, MA, a giant crane needed dismantling. As is customary, specialty contactors were brought in for the task. Norsar LLC was hired to oversee the process and they subcontracted Sarens to operate the jacking system necessary for the dismantling process. OSHA issued citations for serious violations to both of these companies.

The problem, OSHA representatives say, is that the companies deviated from their original plan and then did not adequately work out the new plan, placing many employees in danger. Originally, the companies planned to dismantle the crane's 160-foot leg units in two 80-foot parts. Instead, they opted to work with the full 160-foot units, exposing employees to crushing-by and struck-by hazards. Additionally, they failed to minimize employee presence in the danger zone.

Continue reading "Contractors Cited in Fatal Quincy, Massachusetts Shipyard Crane Accident " »

Children's car seats are designed to keep children safer in the event of an accident. Unlike a regular seatbelt, car seats specifically protect small bodies. However, car accidents remain the leading cause of death among children. This is largely due to the improper use of child car seats. Massachusetts consumers need be aware of proper use of car seats, and also be aware of recalls of defective car seats for children.

Last month a recall was issued for Graco's ComfortSport Convertible Car Seats due to an obscured warning label regarding the child airbag. Car seats can be confusing to install in the first place, but with important warnings covered, it can be close to impossible. Learn more about Ease of Use Ratings below.

Remember that a car seat is only beneficial if

• It fits the child.
• It is properly secured into the car.
• It is in working order.

Selecting a Car Seat Appropriate for Your Child's Size

Rear-Facing Seats: These are appropriate for infants. Use a rear-facing seat from birth until your child is at least one year old. However, you should still use a rear-facing seat as long as your child weighs less than 20 pounds. This is the safest type of car seat--as long as your child fits in it properly.

Forward-Facing Toddler Seats: This type of seat protects children who are at least twenty pounds. It should always be placed in the back seat of your vehicle and can be used until your child weighs 40 pounds (generally around the age of four).

Booster Seats: These larger car seats are used in the rear seats of the vehicle for children over 40 pounds. You should use a booster seat until your child is either eight years old or 4'9" tall.

Back Seat with Safety Belt: Once your child is eight years old or 4'9" tall, he or she can sit in a regular seat with a regular safety belt. However, all children under the age of twelve should ride in the back seat.

Continue reading "Avoiding Injuries Caused by Defective Child Car Seats " »