The Case’s Details

The plaintiffs were allegedly driving on a highway in New Hampshire when they were struck by a car operated by the defendant. Both claimants were injured severely. The police investigating the accident decided that the defendant driver was at fault and issued him a citation for driving while intoxicated. Following that, the plaintiffs filed a claim with the defendant insurer, which was the firm that insured the defendant driver.

The Death of the Decedent

The plaintiff’s deceased allegedly attended a party at the defendant’s residence. He fell down the stairs into the partially finished basement at one point during the evening. He sustained serious brain damage and was unable to communicate as a result of his accident, which was witnessed by no one. He passed away a week later. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the defendant, claiming the decedent died as a result of the defendant’s negligent failure to keep the steps in good repair. The defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation. The plaintiff appealed after the court agreed and granted the defendant’s request.

Causation in Negligence Cases

A plaintiff alleging negligence has to prove that the defendant breached the obligation to exercise reasonable care, that the plaintiff suffered an actual loss, and that the loss was caused by the defendant’s breach, according to Massachusetts law. The plaintiff’s burden of proof includes proving causation. However, in the case at hand, the plaintiff’s only proof that the stairs were defective and that the deficiency caused the decedent’s fall was an unverified expert opinion letter.

The court ruled that this was inadequate evidence, noting that an opinion that is neither an affidavit nor sworn to under penalty of perjury is insufficient to defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court went on to say that even if it took the opinion letter into account, it still couldn’t prove causation. The court emphasized that a plaintiff must prove that there was a probability or greater chance that the injury sustained was caused by the defendant rather than any other source in order for the issue of causation to be submitted to the fact finder.

While an expert’s viewpoint may be able to do so, it must be supported by facts. However, there are no facts of record in this case about the cause of the decedent’s fall. Based on the foregoing, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish causation and upheld the plaintiff’s claims being dismissed.

Consult with a Reputable Massachusetts Personal Injury Lawyer

People are frequently injured as a result of dangerous circumstances found on poorly maintained properties, and their injuries can be fatal in some cases. If you lost a loved one or suffered injuries due to a dangerous condition on another person’s property, Attorney John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa can advise you of your rights and aid you in seeking the full amount of damages recoverable under the law. You can reach Mr. Moffa through the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a meeting.

The Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff

It is reported that the plaintiff worked as a plumber. While fixing a boiler at a residence, he slipped into a sump pit in the basement that was filled with scalding water. When the sump was installed in 2001, it was connected to the boiler’s drain valves, permitting water to drain from the boiler. Following his injury, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging claims against the the insurance and reinsurance companies that provided coverage for the premises, as well as the insurance adjuster who performed a boiler check in 2015.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

According to reports, the plaintiff, a mail carrier, covered a route for one of his coworkers. The defendant’s dog approached him when he was delivering mail to the defendant’s house. He tried to give the dog a treat, but the dog attacked him, biting his wrist and shaking his head ferociously.  After the plaintiff removed his arm from the dog’s mouth, it bit him on the left leg. He managed to extricate himself from the dog, after which the defendant emerged from his home and inquired if the dog had “got” him.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained a wrist injury and subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim. He then brought a civil complaint against the defendant, claiming liability under the dog bite law. The plaintiff moved to add proof of the workers’ compensation benefits he recovered after the attack into evidence at trial. The defendant argued that such information would be used as proof of causation and damages by the jury, and was therefore prejudicial. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding him over $300,000 in damages. The defendant then filed a motion for a reversal of the decision.

Collateral Source Evidence

The only question on appeal was whether the trial judge erred by allowing the plaintiff to provide evidence of his workers’ compensation claim. The appellate court explained that evidence of payments from a collateral source is normally excluded because it could lead juries to infer that the plaintiff is seeking a double recovery or that their claim is insignificant.

Despite the fact that the exact opposite circumstance occurred in this case, the appellate court found that such material was improperly introduced. It ruled that the evidence in question indicated to the jury that a third party had concluded that the defendant was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge’s limiting instructions, however, were found to mitigate the possibility of prejudice. As a result, the ruling was confirmed.

Speak to a Dedicated Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorney

If you were hurt in a dog attack, you could be owed compensation, and it is smart to speak to an attorney regarding your potential claims. Attorney John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa is skilled at helping people harmed by dog bites seek justice for their losses, and if you hire him, he will work diligently on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Moffa through the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a meeting.

Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what information is discoverable in federal action against a ride-sharing company in a matter in which the company refused to respond to discovery requests. If you were hurt in a car crash, you might be owed damages, and it is advisable to confer with a trusted Massachusetts car accident attorney to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was walking when he was struck by the defendant driver. He suffered personal injuries and subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the defendant driver and the defendant ride-sharing company. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver operated the car under the authority and control of the defendant company. He also alleged that the defendant driver was the defendant company’s employer and the defendant company was vicariously liable for the defendant driver’s negligence.

Allegedly, the plaintiff propounded discovery requests upon the defendant company. The defendant company declined to respond to the requests and moved for a protective order, arguing that they were burdensome and harassing. In turn, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant company to respond.

Discovery in Federal Personal Injury Cases

Discovery in federal matters is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provide, in part, that parties may obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a party’s defense or claim and is proportionate to the needs of the case, in consideration of the ease of access to the information, the importance of the information sought, and whether the burden of producing the information outweighs its benefit.

A party from whom discovery is sought can move for an order to protect them from oppression, annoyance, or undue expense or burden. Similarly, the Rules allow parties to move to compel responses to such requests. In the subject case, the court found that the plaintiff’s requests centered around the issue of whether the defendant driver was an employee of the defendant company, and therefore were relevant to the core issues of the case. Thus, to the extent the plaintiff sought such information, his requests were permitted.

Consult an Experienced Massachusetts Attorney

Companies that permit negligent drivers to operate vehicles on their behalf may be deemed responsible for any damages that the drivers cause. If you were hurt in a car accident, it is in your best interest to consult an attorney regarding your potential claims.  Attorney John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa is adept at helping injured parties fight to protect their interests, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Moffa through the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a consultation.

Generally, companies that sell harmful goods can be held accountable for any injuries consumers sustain while using their products. It is well-established that parties only get one bite of the apple, however, which means they only get one shot to prove liability and recover compensation. Additionally, people deemed in privity of a party in a lawsuit are barred from pursuing the same damages at a later date via the doctrine of claim preclusion. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the elements of claim preclusion in a wrongful death case in which it upheld the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. If you lost a loved one due to a dangerous product, it is smart to speak to an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney to evaluate your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

Reportedly, in 1998, the State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a cigarette manufacturer, alleging it engaged in a conspiracy to mislead consumers regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking. The claim was ultimately settled. In 2017, the plaintiff, whose husband died from smoking-related illnesses, filed a lawsuit against the defendant pursuant to the wrongful death act.

Allegedly, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s actions caused her husband’s death, and she sought punitive damages. The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred the plaintiff’s claims.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries

The plaintiff was reportedly traveling home from work when he was stopped by a police officer hired by the defendant city. He was stopped on the basis of an anonymous tip that he was carrying a pistol. The officer dragged the plaintiff from his vehicle, pushed him to the ground, and stepped on his neck, collarbone, and shoulder, fracturing them. The plaintiff was released after police failed to locate a gun in his vehicle.

The plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint against the defendant alleging a variety of grounds, including negligence under the MTCA. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiff failed to furnish the appropriate notice under the MTCA. After reconsideration, the court found in favor of the plaintiff.

Requirements for Seeking Claims Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act

Under the MTCA, a public employer is liable for bodily harm caused by a public employee’s improper or negligent act while performing his or her job. However, the MTCA states that no litigation against a public employer may be filed unless the plaintiff first sends a written presentation of the claim to the public employer’s executive officer. The notice must be sent within two years of the date of the alleged harm, and the executive officer must deny the claim in writing; nevertheless, failing to refute the claim within six months will be regarded a denial.

In the subject case, the plaintiff’s attorney wrote to the defendant in August 2018, roughly eight months after the occurrence, outlining the facts of the incident and requesting an amicable resolution. Despite the defendant’s objections, the court determined that the letter provided adequate notice of the plaintiff’s claim. As a result, the defendant’s petition for summary judgment was denied.

Consult a Capable Attorney in Massachusetts

While public employers can be held accountable for the harm they impose on innocent individuals, stringent criteria must be met before an injured party can pursue claims against them. If you have been harmed as a result of another party’s negligence, Attorney John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa, can inform you of your rights and assist you in pursuing the maximum amount of damages allowed by law. You can reach Mr. Moffa via the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a meeting.

Many jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, have a “dog bite” law that makes owners accountable for any harm their dogs inflict to unwitting victims. While the statute does not require proof of carelessness in order to seek damages, it does require proof of other components, such as ownership. A Massachusetts court recently considered whether a property owner might be held accountable for injuries caused by one of its tenants’ dogs under the dog bite law. If you were injured by a dog, you should consult with a qualified Massachusetts personal injury attorney to see what compensation you may be entitled to recover.

The Circumstances Surrounding the Plaintiff’s Injury

The plaintiff allegedly rode his bicycle past a residential rental property held by the defendant. The plaintiff was chased by a dog belonging to a renter who lived on the premises. It then bit him, knocking him from his bike and injuring him. The plaintiff then filed a case against the defendant, stating that he was strictly accountable for the plaintiff’s injuries under the dog bite legislation. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision in favor of the defendant.

Dog Owner Liability Under Massachusetts Law

The trial court’s decision was upheld by the appellate court. Despite the plaintiff’s allegations to the contrary, the dog bite legislation did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, according to the court. The defendant, the court explained, was not the dog’s owner or keeper, and hence could not be held strictly accountable for the dog’s actions under the dog bite law.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries

Reportedly, the plaintiff attended a funeral service at the defendant’s cemetery. After the service was over, he began to walk over gravestones towards his car. When he was walking, he encountered a soft area, and his foot sunk into the ground, creating a hole that caused him to fall and sustain injuries to his leg and ankle. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligent maintenance of the property caused the dangerous condition that led to his harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of negligence. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

Establishing Liability for a Slip and Fall Accident

Under Massachusetts law, property owners may be held liable for harm suffered by people who legally enter their premises, but only under certain circumstances. Specifically, an injured party must show that the owner knew or should have known that a dangerous condition that posed a risk of harm to invitees existed and that the invitees would not discover the condition or realize the danger and take the actions needed to protect themselves.

The injured party must also show that the owner neglected to take the reasonable steps necessary to protect invitees. Here, the evidence of record showed that the plaintiff admitted that there was no visible hole in the ground prior to his fall, and none of the defendant’s employees were tasked with inspecting that area or were aware of any defect. As such, the court found that the plaintiff was unable to establish that the defendant knew or should have known of the defect as required to establish negligence and granted the defendant’s motion.

Meet with a Trusted Massachusetts Attorney

People who fail to properly maintain their property should be held accountable for any harm that others suffer as a result of their carelessness. If you suffered harm in a trip and fall accident, you might be owed compensation, and you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. Attorney John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa has ample experience helping people injured by the carelessness of others seek redress for their losses, and if you hire him, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Moffa via the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a meeting.

All falls can potentially cause harm but falls from roofs, and other high places typically cause critical injuries. Despite the severity of injuries suffered by people that fall from substantial heights, they can generally only recover damages if they can prove their falls were caused by another party’s carelessness. This requires, in part, proof of the applicable standard of care. As demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling, the courts will only consider relevant evidence in determining what standard applies in fall cases. If you sustained injuries in a fall, you should meet with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to evaluate what damages you may be owed.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for a roofing company the defendant hired to remove snow from the roof of one of its properties. While on the job, the plaintiff fell from the roof. He suffered significant injuries in the fall and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence led to his fall and ensuing injuries.

Reportedly, before the trial, the plaintiff moved in limine for the court to admit Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and publications into evidence. The court denied the motion. The jury found in favor of the defendant, deeming the defendant thirty percent liable and the plaintiff seventy percent liable for the fall. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine.

Establishing the Standard of Care in a Fall Case

The appellate court explained that the OSHA regulations the plaintiff sought to introduce pertained to fall protection and issuing citations at multi-employer worksites. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court ultimately determined that such regulations were irrelevant, as the defendant did not employ the plaintiff, and as the regulations only applied to workplace standards on construction sites, they did not set the standard of care.

The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. It noted that while violations of regulations can be used as evidence of negligence, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the regulations in question were admissible for that purpose or were relevant to establishing the standard of care that applied to the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to explain how the OSHA regulations pertained to the determination of the common law standard of care imposed on a property owner. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Speak to a Seasoned Massachusetts Attorney

Falls from high elevations often cause catastrophic injuries, and many people who suffer such harm can recover compensation for their losses. If you sustained devastating harm in an accident caused by another party’s negligence, you should speak to an attorney about your options for pursuing damages. John S. Moffa of the Law Offices of John S. Moffa is a seasoned personal injury attorney with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a just outcome, and if you engage his services, he will diligently pursue the best outcome possible in your case. You can reach Mr. Moffa through the online form or by calling 508-362-5554 to set up a conference.