In 2026, successful dram shop claims are built less on outrage and more on evidence. Defense lawyers and insurers will almost always argue the same thing: Our staff didn’t know the patron was intoxicated. Your job is to prove the opposite using time-stamped records, credible witnesses, video, and a tight timeline that shows impairment was visible and service continued anyway.

What Massachusetts law is really about is plain English, serving an intoxicated person is prohibited.

The post Dram Shop Cases in Massachusetts: The Evidence Checklist That Matters Most in 2026 Overservice Claims appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

In Massachusetts, this legal concept is often called dram shop liability or liquor liability. It can allow an injured person to pursue compensation from an establishment that negligently served alcohol to someone who was already intoxicated, and that person later caused a crash.

Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers represents drunk driving victims in Boston and across Massachusetts, and we investigate dram shop claims when the facts support them.

The post Dram Shop Liability in Massachusetts: When Bars and Restaurants Can Be Responsible After a Drunk Driving Crash appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Ride-sharing should make Boston safer during the holiday season. Most nights it does. But when an Uber or Lyft driver is impaired, passengers and other motorists can be left facing injuries and a complicated insurance landscape. If you were hurt after a festive night out because your ride-share driver was under the influence, you have rights, and the law provides multiple paths to recovery. The key is to act quickly while the evidence is still within reach, then ensure the right insurance coverage is triggered for the driver’s status at the time of the crash.

Why Ride-share Trip Status Matters

The post Rideshare After the Party: What If Your Uber/Lyft Driver Is Impaired? appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Massachusetts law does more than hold the drunk driver accountable. In some situations, the bar, restaurant, or even the private party host who provided the alcohol may also be legally responsible. Understanding dram shop liability and social host duty can help you protect your rights and pursue the full compensation you deserve.

Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers represents drunk driving victims throughout Boston and across Massachusetts, and this guide explains what you should know as the holiday season begins.

The post Holiday Parties, Dram Shop Liability, and Social Host Duty in Boston: What DUI Victims Need to Know Before the Holidays appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

What the enforcement wave is and when it ran in 2025

Each summer, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration coordinates a nationwide crackdown on impaired driving around Labor Day. In 2025, the enforcement period ran from August 15 to September 1, supported by paid and earned media that encouraged drivers to plan a sober ride. You likely saw messages like “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” and “Ride Sober or Get Pulled Over” across television, radio, digital platforms, and highway signs.

The post Massachusetts Wraps “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over”: What It Means for Victims and Families appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

What Happened in August 2025: A Snapshot of Tragedy and Accountability

Across the country, police and prosecutors announced charges in several heart-wrenching crashes. In Houston, two young men visiting friends were killed when an allegedly intoxicated driver slammed into their vehicle in Midtown. Prosecutors brought murder charges, reflecting how seriously Texas treats extreme intoxication and reckless conduct that causes deaths. Families and classmates held vigils and called for accountability.

The post Drunk Driving Victims: Late-Summer 2025 Developments appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Our drunk driving victim accident attorney explains the new mandate, the technology behind it, and its implications for safety, privacy, and the evolving legal landscape.

The Legislative Foundation

The post A New Road to Safety: Massachusetts Drivers and the Coming 2026 Drunk-Driving Detection Mandate appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Every year in the Commonwealth, crashes caused by drivers under the influence shatter lives and place an enormous financial and emotional burden on victims and their families. Massachusetts law recognizes that innocent people injured by drunk driving deserve not only compassion but robust legal remedies that make them whole and deter future misconduct. This article explains those remedies from the vantage point of a Boston personal injury practice dedicated to protecting victims’ rights. Our Boston drunk driving team at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers has recovered compensation for crash survivors across the Commonwealth. We provide the following overview as a public service resource, not as individualized legal advice.

Massachusetts Drunk-Driving Statutes: A Foundation for Your Civil Claim

The post Understanding Your Rights as a Victim of Drunk Driving in Massachusetts appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Several studies say that they do. If you, a family member, or a friend have been in an accident caused by an intoxicated person in Massachusetts, contact our law firm as soon as possible. We can help.

Percent of THC-Positive Drivers in Fatal Crashes in Washington Has Doubled

Researchers who looked at Washington state found that the percentage of drivers who tested positive for THC after a fatal crash has doubled since the state legalized the use of recreational marijuana in 2012. THC is the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana and the component in the drug that makes people feel “high.”

The researchers found that from 2008 to 2012—the five-year period before marijuana was legal—approximately 8.8% of drivers involved in deadly crashes were THC-positive. That rate jumped to 18% in the five-year period from 2013 to 2017.

AAA Foundation for Traffic performed the study and released the results in January 2020. The study did not try to ascertain if marijuana caused or contributed to the crashes.

The researchers also discovered that the average number of THC-positive drivers involved in fatal crashes increased. In the five years prior to legalization, an average of 56 drivers involved in fatal crashes per year were THC-positive compared to an average of 130 drivers five years after legalization.

“This study enabled us to review a full 10-years’ worth of data about the potential impact of marijuana on driving safety—and it raises significant concerns,” Dr. David Yang, executive director of AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, said in a Jan. 30, 2020, statement.

Recreational Pot Laws Could Lead to 7,000 Extra Traffic Fatalities Each Year

Another study looked at recreational marijuana laws and traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington state from 2005 to 2017.

This study found evidence of increased traffic fatalities after the implementation of recreational marijuana laws in Colorado but not in Washington. The researchers attributed the difference between the two states to variances in how the laws were implemented, out-of-state marijuana tourism and various local factors.

The study was reported in JAMA Internal Medicine on June 22, 2020.

A different study, also reported in JAMA on the same day, took a look at the first four states to legalize recreational cannabis—Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska—and analyzed data over a longer time period. The researchers found that traffic fatalities spiked about 20% in those states post-legalization.

“If we apply these numbers to the nation as a whole, nationwide legalization would be associated with about 7,000 excess traffic fatalities each year,” lead researcher Dr. Russell Kamer said in an interview with MedicalResearch.com.

Kamer said steps should be taken to reduce the number of motorists who drive under the influence of marijuana much in the same way that states have tackled the issue of drunk driving. Misinformation that marijuana use doesn’t impact a person’s driving ability is “widespread,” he said.

The study results indicate that more research is needed to determine the effect of recreational marijuana laws on traffic accidents and fatalities.

Marijuana Laws in Massachusetts

According to information on mass.gov, Marijuana was the drug most likely to be detected in motorists involved in fatal crashes in Massachusetts from 2013 to 2017.

Recreational marijuana became legal in Massachusetts on Dec. 15, 2016.

The state also reported that during the five-year period from 2013 to 2017:

• 11% of drivers involved in fatal collisions were found to have both alcohol and drugs in their systems.
• 78% of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes were men.
• The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes who were alcohol-impaired and had drugs in their systems increased by 63%. Increased from when?

In Massachusetts, marijuana is legal for individuals ages 21 and older. However, there are some restrictions:

• It’s illegal to use marijuana in any form in public or on federal land.
• Similar to alcohol laws, it’s illegal for a person to have an open container of any form of marijuana in the passenger area of a car while the vehicle is on the road. Marijuana must be stored in a closed container inside the trunk or in a locked glove box.
• As with alcohol, it’s illegal for a person to drive while under the influence of marijuana or other drugs.
• Employers, landlords and cities and towns in Massachusetts might have their own policies concerning marijuana use.

Motorists who drive under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or other substances face penalties ranging from a $500 fine to two and one-half years of imprisonment pursuant to M.G.L. c.90, § 24.

More information about marijuana use in Massachusetts is available through the Cannabis Control Commission.

Driving under the Influence of Marijuana

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has reported that marijuana can impair a driver’s judgment, coordination and reaction time, and studies have found a direct link between a person’s blood THC concentration and driving ability. NIDA also cited these study findings:

• THC-positive drivers are twice as likely to be responsible for a fatal motor vehicle crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol.
• The role of marijuana in motor vehicle accidents is unclear because marijuana can be detected in body fluids for weeks after intoxication, and people often use marijuana with alcohol.
• THC-positive drivers involved in crashes are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the accident than drivers who had not used alcohol or drugs. This is especially true of individuals with high levels of THC in their systems.
• In contrast, a large study performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk linked to marijuana use after the researchers controlled for drivers’ age, gender, race and presence of alcohol.

To learn more about how the attorneys at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, LLC can help you with a drunk driving or other impaired driving accident claim, contact our law office at (617) 777-7777 or use our online form.

The post Recreational Marijuana Laws Could Lead to More Car Crash Deaths appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.

Among those involved are AAA Northeast and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who have for years been pushing lawmakers to expand ignition interlock device usage. These machines, required of repeat OUI offender in Massachusetts since the 2005 passage of Melanie’s Law, which enhanced numerous penalties for drunk driving.

Per MGL 90, § 24, and MGL 90 § 24 ½, ignition interlock devices are to be installed – and paid for – by individuals convicted twice or more of operating under the influence, either when they are eligible for license restatement following their revocation/suspension OR during their revocation/suspension if they qualify for a condition hardship driver’s license. The latter is only good for 12 hours daily throughout that time.

The devices require the driver to provide an alcohol-free breath sample before the vehicle will start. If the individual tests positive for alcohol over a certain point, the ignition “locks” and the vehicle won’t start. The device also records the number of failed breath tests, which can be submitted to a judge and used as evidence against the driver if a condition of probation or parole is that the individual not consume alcohol. 

However, while other states require the device for those after their first conviction for impaired driving, Massachusetts only mandates it after a second or subsequent offense. At that point, it can be mandated for up to two years, with judicial discretion.

Ignition Interlock Devices Prove Effective in Curbing Drunk Driving

Ignition interlock devices have been touted by anti-drunk driving activists because they prevent known offenders from operating a vehicle – unless they can prove they aren’t impaired. This is important because, as noted by MADD, roughly one-third of all drunk drivers are repeat offenders. Even those who are technically first-time offenders have statistically driven drunk at least 80 times before they actually got caught.

MADD reports that states that have adopted ignition interlock device laws applicable to all offenders have seen the number of drunk driving deaths plummet. Research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that repeat offenses of drunk driving deaths fell by 67 percent in states with strictly-enforced ignition interlock laws.

Given that drunk driving injures more than 290,000 and kills more than 10,000 every single year, a two-thirds reduction – even a one-third reduction – would mean thousands of lives saved and potentially hundreds of thousands fewer maimed and scarred.

Lawmakers in every state – except Massachusetts – have agreed.

It’s a bit puzzling considering the commonwealth is so progressive on so many other issues. In a single recent year, drunk driving claimed 120 lives here – a number that has remained largely unchanged in a decade.

Road Safety Advocates Push for Change

Some state lawmakers are on board to help change this, the latest effort being S 2137 and H 1580, which would require first-time OUI offenders to have the device installed.

It’s not a new effort. In previous years, all such efforts were shot down in committee. Now, two senate bills are currently being weighed by the state’s Transportation Committee, while the other is being mulled by lawmakers in the Judiciary Committee.

Survivors of drunk driving crashes in Massachusetts say they’ve been upset by the lack of action on the legislative front, given how much they have been through and the data that proves these measures work.

Drunk Driving Accident Victims’ Legal Rights

The good news for Massachusetts drunk driving accident victims is that it’s not even necessary for a driver to be convicted of OUI in order to collect damages for negligence. In fact the question of whether a defendant is guilty of OUI and whether a defendant can be found negligent/liable for a crash are dealt with in two separate courts independent of each other. Further, the standard of proof in a criminal case – beyond a reasonable doubt – is much higher than what is necessary to establish in a civil case, which necessitates a finding that the evidence points to plaintiff’s conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence.

It is true that evidence gathered in a criminal case – including blood-alcohol concentration, observations of an officer at the scene (assuming he or she comes to court to attest to those observations) and other details can be presented in a civil case for damages.

Still, an accident alone is not negligence. Consumption of alcohol to the point of intoxication and then driving IS considered negligence per se (or negligence as a matter of law), but one still needs to prove that the crash was either caused in whole/in part by that negligence or that but for that negligence, the injuries sustained would not have been so severe.

Impaired drivers can also still claim that other motorists were comparatively negligent, meaning that to some extent in some way shared a degree of blame for their own injuries. MGL ch. 231 s. 85 stipulates that comparative negligence won’t bar a plaintiff from filing a claim in Massachusetts (unless the claimant is more than 50 percent to blame for the crash), but it can proportionately reduce one’s damages. That’s why it’s something to which Boston drunk driving attorneys pay close attention.

We will also look closely at who served the alcohol to the driver in question and who loaned the car used – particularly if the driver was known to be a prior or repeat offender with an ignition interlock device. This could be the basis for a claim of dram shop liability (the server of alcohol) or negligent entrustment (the owner of the vehicle). Licensed vendors are not to sell alcohol to those who are intoxicated, and vehicle owners are not to entrust their cars to those known to be reckless or dangerous behind the wheel.

In many drunk driving civil lawsuits, the question is often less focused on who was at-fault and more on the extent of one’s damages. This can be a complex battle of its own. That’s why it’s imperative that those injured in Boston drunk driving crashes seek immediate legal assistance.

If you or someone you love has been injured a Boston drunk driving accident, call for a free and confidential appointment at (617) 777-7777.

Additional Resources:

Activists Come Out In Favor Of Ignition Interlock Devices For First-Time Drunk Drivers, July 31, 2019, CBS Boston

The post Drunk Drivers in Massachusetts Can Still Evade Ignition Interlock Penalties appeared first on Boston Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog.