Boston Accident Lawyer Blog

Crossing a trafficked street is a lot more dangerous than the average person thinks. The risk of serious injury increases with the volume of traffic present, a great deal of Massachusetts pedestrian-motor vehicle accidents happen this way.

This was illustrated in a recent case settlement involving just such an accident, when a 34 year-old man was attempting to cross a street in downtown Boston when he was struck by a vehicle in the process. The victim suffered a fractured eye socket, neck, head and back sprains, and several lacerations to his legs, arms and hands. He also eventually required arthroscopic surgery after extensive physical therapy failed to produce improvement. Measured overall, the victim suffered an 8-percent loss of bodily function on the whole.

Luckily, the victim’s lost wages and medical expenses were paid by workers’ compensation insurance after it was established that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he was injured. In total, he didn’t return to full-time employment until18 months following the accident.

This kind of accident illustrates just how much damage can be caused by simply crossing the street. Scary, huh? The take-away message from this is plain: Always be cautious when walking amid any kind of trafficked street: A car, a truck, a motorcycle – even a bicycle – can turn the corner, jump a light or otherwise lose control. And the consequences can be devastating. If you or someone you care about has been injured in a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident, or has suffered a Massachusetts personal injury, give us a call. We’d be glad to let you know your best legal options.

First, let me say to my readers that I’m sorry that I haven’t posted here in a while. I was extremely busy with cases in the first three weeks of December, then went on an extended Christmas & New Year’s holiday shortly thereafter.

Besides that, however, there was another important matter distracting my time: I’ve spent the last couple of months re-designing and re-formatting my website, www.attorneywdkickham.com.

By later this week, it will be complete, and I invite you to take a look at it. While it will contain the same valuable information on Massachusetts personal injury law that it always did, it will feature new and valuable information on a variety of tort and injury topics.

As always, if I can answer any questions you may have about Massachusetts personal injury law, don’t hesitate to give me a call.

Readers of this blog know that I’ve written previously about the problem of hospital alarm fatigue. It’s a new type of medical malpractice claim, and it’s not necessarily an easy problem to solve – at least not overnight.

Very recently, a case of this type that was previously filed against Massachusetts General Hospital, settled prior to trial, for $850,000. Actually, the hospital and the patient’s family had reached an agreement on settlement back in May, but the settlement was not filed in court and made public until very recently. The case was brought by the family of a man who died at MGH when nurses failed to respond to alarms on his cardiac monitor . The incident brought national media attention to the dangers of “hospital alarm fatigue’’ among nurses and other hospital staff – and raised the question of what, exactly, can be done to combat the problem. This case was noteworthy not only for the subject matter of hospital alarm fatigue, but for the way in which it was settled. Usually, the liability insurance companies that insure doctors and hospitals fight medical malpractice and medical negligence cases to the end. They do that in large measure because they know that their chances before a jury are very good: Statistically, juries are reluctant to find against doctors and hospitals.

As a Boston Massachusetts medical malpractice lawyer, I can assure you that this is due in large measure to the public brainwashing that has been accomplished on the subject of “tort reform” by the liability insurance industry. Anyone reading this post should, without delay, view the HBO award-winning documentary “Hot Coffee”. This stunning expose will show you exactly what “tort reform” means when it comes to medical malpractice and medical negligence cases – and of just how unjust it is.

Back to this case: In a rare display of cooperation, the malpractice insurance company that insures MGH and its affiliates was quite forthcoming, reaching a settlement on behalf of MGH and the doctors and nurses who were responsible for the victim’s care (the deceased’s name was not released due to privacy considerations.) The victim, 89 years old, was recovering from heart surgery and awaiting the implantation of cardiac pacemaker when he died in January 2010. According to both state and federal investigators, 10 nurses who were on duty at the time could not recall hearing the alarm (a series of beeps,) at the nurses’ station. The nurses and staff also did not see ticker tape-style messages on three separate hallway signs that were warning them that the patient’s heart rate was falling over a 20-minute time period. Investigators concluded that the nurses and staff had experienced “alarm fatigue” due to being constantly exposed to beeping monitors. However, and importantly, it was also discovered that the volume for a separate crisis alarm on the patient’s bedside monitor had been turned off.

Patient monitors can save lives when they alert nurses to dangerous changes in a patient’s condition, but the problem is that statistically, most alarms are false, triggered by patients usually shifting in bed, or minor events. Not only have I blogged previously on this subject, but The Boston Globe published an investigation published earlier this year, exposing this danger and how it has been linked to hundreds of patient deaths at a variety of hospitals.

I will say that according to all reports of which I am aware, MGH conducted itself admirably at least in this one case. In April 2010, two months after the patient’s death, MGH’s senior vice president for quality and safety wrote the family a letter of apology, acknowledging that “we know that we let him (the patient) and you down in our care.’’ In the letter, the official wrote that the hospital had conducted an internal investigation that led to system improvements, including disabling the off switches on 1,100 cardiac monitors, providing increased education to nurses and doctors about responding to monitor alarms quickly, and installing increased speakers so that alarms can be better heard.

More cases of this type remain to be resolved. It would be a blessing, and an admirable change of attitude amongst hospitals, doctors, and the professional liability insurers that defend these cases, if a lot more of these cases could be handled the way this case at MGH was. It does neither the victims of medical malpractice, doctors, nurses, or liability insurers, much good at all to drag these cases out, with heels dug deeply in denial. If acknowledgements of mistakes could be made more by doctors and medical staff when a mistake occurs, apologies offered, and reasonable compensation extended as was here, the wars that so often result in these cases, could be averted.

Is that asking too much?

The annual Harvard-Yale football game yesterday will be known not for its memorable play or a sudden-death win, but for a sudden death of another kind: A young woman was killed by the driver of a U-Haul truck that was transporting beer kegs and other tailgating supplies to the game, held at Yale University this year. The annual event between the two Ivy League schools is 128 years old, has long been an institution among alumni of the schools, and is known as “The Game” among students and alumni.

The woman who was killed in the accident was identified by New Haven police as Nancy Barry, who lived in Salem, Massachusetts. According to a spokesperson from Yale University, Ms. Barry was not an alumna of either Harvard or Yale. Witnesses told police that Ms. Barry was run over by the truck as it accelerated when turning a corner. She was taken to Yale-New Haven Hospital, and pronounced dead shortly after 10 a.m. The two other victims suffering injuries were identified as Sarah Short, a 30-year-old Yale student from New Haven, and Elizabeth Dernbach, who was reported to be a staff member at Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education. Ms. Short suffered life-threatening injuries and was listed in critical but stable condition at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and Ms. Dernbach sustained minor injuries and was treated briefly at the Hospital of Saint Raphael in New Haven.

This fatality and these injuries are far too common. As a Boston, Massachusetts car accident lawyer, I can assure my readers that while most motor vehicle accidents involve vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, a great many also involve pedestrian injuries. This is especially so at events where large numbers of cars, trucks, and pedestrians are concentrated together at public events – like football games and concerts. Tailgating at these events – drinking and eating - is almost as popular as the events themselves. The lethal combination of too many vehicles, too many people and alcohol, is a deadly combination. In fact, it is the perfect storm for what happened yesterday. While “legacy” events such as the Harvard-Yale football game, and lesser-known college football games, have for years allowed the open use of alcohol at these events (in practice unregulated to any effective degree,) for a long time now I’ve thought that practice unwise. I should point out that while the driver of the truck that caused this death and these injuries has not yet, to my knowledge, been charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, he was transporting kegs of beer in the rented U-Haul truck he was driving, though he was taken into custody and questioned.

The accident occurred just before 10 a.m. as the truck entered a parking lot near the Yale Bowl and the driver accelerated as he made a turn, a New Haven police spokesperson said. “He accelerated, striking three women, and continued until it hit a parked U-Haul truck. That truck then pushed into another U-Haul truck.” All three trucks were loaded with kegs and other tailgating supplies.

The civil liability exposure for this motor vehicle fatality and these injuries will be extremely high. The New York Times has reported that the driver was a Yale undergraduate and that the U-Haul had been rented by members of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity. In terms of obtaining financial compensation for the Ms. Barry’s death and for the injuries the other two women suffered, the attorneys representing these victims will look first to any automobile insurance that may have provided bodily injury liability coverage for the driver of the U-Haul truck. Next, attorneys will look to any liability insurance that may have covered the rental of the U-Haul truck, the business that rented the U-Haul truck, and possibly the U-Haul corporation itself. If it were later determined that the accident occurred due to a mechanical defect in the truck or any of its component parts affecting safety, then companies involved in the production, marketing and sale of those components may also become potential defendants. Last, but not least, Yale University might be a potential defendant in any litigation that follows this tragedy.

Why? As a Norfolk County Massachusetts car accident lawyer, I believe a legal argument can be made that Yale University exhibited negligence in allowing U-Haul trucks, kegs of beer, and hard liquor at this event, combined with what many people commented was poor traffic enforcement. Harvard banned U-Haul trucks and alcohol at their tailgating events last year, and beefed up traffic management. But to too many other colleges, the idea of interfering with their beloved football games and tailgating parties, is too much. How popular are some of these tailgating parties? Following yesterday’s tragedy – which was broadcast over speakers at half-time - tailgating continued throughout the game and for more than an hour after the game ended, until police forced people to leave around 5 p.m.

It is said that life is ironic. Occasionally an event comes along to prove that point, and today’s post is a tragic reminder of that.

The case is ironic because it involves catastrophic consequences of medical negligence, with the victim being a doctor and surgeon. The plaintiff doctor, 61 years old, underwent elective surgery for a condition known as cervical stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. The operation required the placement of surgical screws into the spine, and the neurosurgeon performing the surgery drilled a hole into the plaintiff’s spinal cord. In the process, the surgeon punctured what is known as the dura of the spinal column, which is the membrane covering the spinal cord. The plaintiff awoke from the surgery a quadriplegic.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff underwent extensive inpatient physical rehabilitation for two months. Following months of physical therapy and medical management, he slowly – and surprisingly - improved. Before his rehabilitation began, he had to be lifted out of bed by an electric lift in order to be placed into a wheelchair. He had to be essentially “retrained” in every aspect of daily living, including not only basic ambulating, but in controlling bladder and bowel movements, and basic motor skills. Upon inpatient discharge, the plaintiff then had to undergo more extensive physical therapy for several additional months. He progressed from a wheelchair, to walking with forearm crutches, to using a walker, and he now walks with a cane. All in all, a miraculous recovery, most likely due to the fact that even though the doctor performing the surgery perforated the membrane covering the spinal cord, the spinal cord itself wasn’t punctured.

Despite his miraculous progress, the victim in this case will never be the same. He continues to suffer residual weakness in his torso and limbs, as well as severe impairment of motor function of his fingers, neuropathic pain and loss of control in his arms and legs. He will never again perform surgery as a physician.

As a Boston medical malpractice attorney, I can tell you that cases like this happen far more than most people want to think. Hospitals and medical malpractice insurers like to tell the public that almost all medical negligence cases are frivolous, and proof that “tort reform” is needed to “hold down medical malpractice liability insurance premiums.” They convince their customers – doctors – that these lies are true, promising them “reduced” insurance premiums if they help the companies to pressure legislators to pass medical liability “reform.” After they then pass laws either prohibiting various kinds of medical liability suits, or placing damage caps on the types of suits that can be brought, they lower premiums for a year or so, before jacking them up all over again. To learn more about how unjust these “reforms” can be to the average American, view the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee.” Believe me, as a Dedham, Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, every American owes it to him or herself to view this documentary about what "tort reform" is really all about. You’ll walk away stunned, even a little frightened.

If you feel that you or someone you care about may have been the victim of medical negligence or Massachusetts medical malpractice, contact our office for a free consultation. We have years of experience in this area of law, and can give you the guidance you need.

Consumers and product safety advocates won a victory recently, with a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. This court is the federal appellate court for Massachusetts and surrounding states; it hears appeals from the U.S. District Court in Boston, and other federal District Courts in this immediate area. Because this is a federal decision, it will hold significant precedential weight in similar cases filed throughout the United States in the future.

The case began when a construction worker suffered a severe injury to his hand when using a bench-top table saw. The saw’s blade cut into his hand, causing permanent injuries. The saw was a Ryobi Model BTS 15 bench-top table saw, purchased at a Home Depot. Following the injury, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer, Ryobi Technologies, Inc., in U.S. District Court in Boston, seeking damages for his injuries. His suit claimed negligence and breach of the “implied warranty of merchantability,” which is a Massachusetts law that regardless of what a manufacturer’s written warranty may expressly state, the product carries an “implied” warranty, that it is “merchantable,” (safely usable,) and that it is fit for a particular purpose.

“Negligence?”, I’m sure you ask. “Why should a saw manufacturer be held liable if someone using the saw suffers an injury from the blade?” Why? Because, as a Boston, Massachusetts product liability lawyer I can assure you, there’s always a story behind the story – and there’s a story behind this one. Which is: It seems as though Ryobi Technologies was aware of a certain technology that had become known as a flesh-detection system called “SawStop.” This device basically stops the saw blade immediately whenever it senses some kind of flesh pressing against the spinning blade. At trial before the U.S. District Court in Boston, the plaintiff argued that as manufactured and sold, the saw was defectively designed, unsafe, and that the “SawStop” technology represented a reasonable and viable alternative design. Supporting this argument, the plaintiff presented testimony of his expert witness, the man who invented “SawStop” in 1999. That inventor testified that he had presented SawStop to several major saw manufacturers, including Ryobi, in 2000. All had refused to adopt the new safety technology, despite the fact that it worked. And why? The plaintiff argued that it was due to a “silent agreement” among several manufacturers that if even one of them adopted the safety system, the others would be forced to do the same, or face heightened liability exposure to liability if they didn’t. That’s called a “conspiracy of silence.” Typical corporate America.

The District Court jury awarded a verdict of $1.5 million for the plaintiff. Ryobi appealed, and that’s what led to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision.

At appeal, Ryobi argued that the plaintiff had failed to present adequate evidence that the flesh-detection technology met the test for a “suitable alternative design”, under a 1978 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision in the area of product liability law. That decision, Back v. Wickes Corp, established five factors to be considered in determining whether a product could have been made safer using a “suitable alternative design.” Ryobi argued those tests had not been met, and thus the jury that previously found in favor of the plaintiff, never should have even heard the case.

Not so, according to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, affirming the verdict of $1.5 million.

The court wrote that “As a matter of law, we do not find support for [Ryobi’s] suggestion that a plaintiff asserting a design defect claim must present an alternative design that meets all the … Back factors prima facie. Quite the opposite, all Massachusetts law requires is that ‘competing factors should be balanced when deciding reasonableness of design.”The bottom line of this decision is that dangerous products, such as table saws and other dangerous products, will now be made safer by manufacturers. They won’t be able to hide behind onerous legal requirements that prevent injured plaintiffs from essentially saying, “This product as you manufactured it is unreasonably dangerous. You knew that you could have made it safer, but you chose not to, basically to save money, and you should be held liable for the injuries that would not have resulted if you manufactured your product in a safer way.” That’s a victory for consumers suffering a Massachusetts personal injury due to an unsafe product, and for anyone who’s ever been injured by a callous corporation.

The decision is Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al.

A fatal Massachusetts premises injury resulted earlier this week when a backyard deck that a homeowner was working on suddenly collapsed, crushing him underneath it. George Carroll, 78, of Melrose was working on the deck when it suddenly became detached from the house. Firefighters responding to the scene could not lift the heavy deck off the victim, and had to use inflatable airbags to gain access to him. Carroll was transported by ambulance to Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, but unfortunately, it was too late and Mr. Carroll was pronounced dead.

The reason why this incident is posted here is because it offers a powerful cautionary note in the area of law known as Massachusetts premises liability. In this incident, the homeowner himself was the one who suffered the fatal injuries, and therefore his estate cannot sue another person or a third party to recover for his death or pain and suffering. If the victim had been visiting another person’s home, and suffered the injuries at that person’s property, that person or his estate could sue the homeowner where the injury occurred, for negligence. Typically, the negligence alleged would be a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for persons such as the victim. In the event of such a claim, the homeowners’ insurance policy of the person who owned the property would, assuming liability were acknowledged, provide coverage for the claimed damages according to the policy limits. If the owner of the property did not have a homeowner’s insurance policy or other liability insurance, through which coverage would be available, things become more difficult. Without liability coverage, any settlement or jury verdict that a plaintiff might secure, would have to be collected directly from the homeowner’s personal assets. That process involves attaching real estate and other assets, and becomes much more complicated and time-consuming.

As a Westwood, Massachusetts premises liability attorney, I can tell you that the primary lesson from this very unfortunate incident is this: Whether you own property or rent, always carry a policy of liability insurance on the property, to protect you if others are injured on your premises. While the victim in this tragic incident in Melrose this week was the homeowner himself, it often happens the other way around. And lesson number two: When making repairs to house and building structures such as stairways and decks, always employ a licensed construction professional. Structures like these are notorious for causing injuries. Ask for a copy of the contractor's trade license, and secure several customer references. Work like this must be done in accordance with local building codes. If you “do-it-yourself” and the finished work does not meet building codes, it could give your insurer an excuse to deny coverage.

If you or someone you care about has been injured while visiting another's home or premises, contact us for a free consultation. With over two decades handling these types of claims, we can provide you with the experience and guidance you need to determine your legal options.

As a Dedham and Boston, Massachusetts medical malpractice lawyer, I frequently see Massachusetts personal-injury cases that could have been possibly avoided. In the latest example of this, a 65-year-old man was belatedly diagnosed with cancer of the sigmoid colon, which proved fatal.

This case settled prior to trial for $1.5 million, for the delayed diagnosis of colon cancer resulting in death.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant doctor was negligent in that he failed to offer or perform an annual colon cancer screening. The defendant physician, who acknowledged that the medical standard of care required a colon cancer screening, claimed that he would only have been required to conduct those tests if he had been the patient’s primary care doctor. But he claimed that the man was only a private-pay patient who was only seeing him for blood-pressure checks and he did not want the full services of a primary-care physician.

The patient, after being admitted to the hospital with complaints of abdominal pain, received exploratory surgery, which detected Stage IIIB colon cancer, which later spread to his lungs. He died in 2007.

I see such cases of Massachusetts medical negligence all the time. Right now, most physicians would tell you that it is necessary to get a colonoscopy every five years, and the defendant should have made sure to ask the plaintiff when he had received his last colonoscopy. For healthy individuals who aren't at high risk for developing colon cancer, screening should begin at age 50. There are several testing methods available, which should be performed every 5-10 years. Ask your doctor about the options for colon cancer testing and how often you should be tested.

If you or a loved one believes that you are the victim of medical malpractice contact us for a free initial consultation. We are “The lawyers who make house calls,” and if necessary we will come to you.

Medical negligence and medical malpractice usually involve mistakes in judgment on the part of a physician, nurse, or other health care provider. But an interesting source of medical negligence is on the rise in many American hospitals: It’s called “alarm fatigue”, and it most commonly affects nurses rather than doctors.

Think back to the last time you were on a patient ward in a hospital. Chances are, a great many of the patients were hooked up to some type of electronic patient monitoring system – whether for the purpose of monitoring heart rate, breathing, blood pressure or other vital signs. These machines are highly sensitive, and are designed to sound an alarm to the nursing station in the event of the slightest change in a patient's medical status. That sounds good – until you consider the practical reality that if a patient so much as leans too much on a tube, or unintentionally pulls a wire out of its input, an alarm will sound. Sometimes, if a patient sneezes and breathing is momentarily interrupted, an alarm will sound. Now combine this with the reality that on any given hospital patient ward, there are perhaps 50 or more patients at any given time. The result? Patient monitor alarms going off left and right. The practical reality is that a cacophony of alarm noises can result at nursing stations, and eventually, the alarms no longer produce the result they were designed to: An immediate human response to investigate any medical emergency. The Boston Globe reported on this new development recently (click on link for story.)

All of this poses an interesting legal question: Should nurses and hospitals be held legally liable for medical malpractice if medical harm or death results from a patient not being responded to appropriately, due to ‘alarm fatigue’? As a Dedham, Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, my professional opinion is thus: It depends. Nurses are human beings. They are responsible for the care of several different patients at any one time. If a hospital floor or patient ward is regularly experiencing a cacophony of alarms, many of which are non-emergent or not life threatening, this can produce a desensitizing effect among the nursing staff. To my knowledge as a Boston, Massachusetts medical malpractice lawyer, there are no accurate statistics yet available as to what percentage of patient monitor alarms are in fact false alarms, but if the actual number were high, it would be understandable, from a human behavior perspective, why some nurses would not respond as quickly as if the false alarms were very low. The unfortunate result is that, eventually, a patient in genuine medical distress is not going to be responded to appropriately – and a medical negligence suit is likely to follow. One Massachusetts medical negligence lawsuit based on ‘alarm fatigue’ has already been brought.

The legal question in such cases is not "Was the medical response too late to prevent the patient’s death or injury?", but rather, “How much of a delay in response occurred, after the alarm first sounded?” If the answer were merely 2, 3 or 4 minutes, that would be one situation. If the answer were a half-hour, 45 minutes, or an hour after the alarm first sounded, that’s quite another. These new cases, like all Massachusetts personal injury and negligence cases, are fact-driven. Reportedly, several hospitals have tried to tackle this problem – without great success, so far.

As to potential legal liability for hospital injuries or deaths that result from alarm fatigue, my first impression is that the manufacturers of these machines must find and develop a way to produce patient monitors that are effective at sensing truly threatening, emergent patient status changes, while not sounding off at the slightest change in patient status. By “slightest change in patient status”, I refer to the examples alluded to above: A patient sneezes, and an alarm goes off; a patent leans too much on an electronic lead or tube, and an alarm goes off. Surely, in the year 2011, the manufacturers of these machines can produce equipment that is both sensitive to alerting hospital staff to a true medical emergency, without producing a cacophony of alarm bells that desensitize the human beings they are directed at.

Almost everyone knows about the tragedies of drunk driving. What a lot of people don’t know about, is the subject of civil liability that can attach to drunk driving. When people do think of this subject, they commonly think of the damages that a victim of drunk driving might be able to receive from the insurance company that insured a car driven by the drunk driver. That’s very common in Massachusetts car accident cases, and it’s an area that our firm specializes in.

But what a great many people don’t know about is the liability that can attach to the business or other source that provided or served the alcohol to the drunk driver. Categorically, these sources are usually restaurants, bars & taverns, or non-commercial hosts of parties, receptions or similar events. Civil liability law permits individuals who are injured as the result of negligent service of alcohol to bring suit against any of these categories of potential defendants. When the defendant is a business such as a bar or restaurant, the liability is usually based on “Dram Shop Laws”, which are specific state statutes that impose liability on liquor license holders or their promotional partners (known legally as “licensees.”) Such statutes are designed to encourage responsible alcohol service, and to provide a mechanism for third parties to file suit for injuries or deaths that result from a liquor law violation. When the defendant is not a business such as a restaurant or bar, but is instead a homeowner who threw a party or function at which alcohol was served, and injuries resulted allegedly due to over-serving someone alcohol, the liability is known as “social host liability.” This liability stems from specific laws stating that social hosts (i.e., non-commercial hosts of a party or function, etc.) who provide alcohol to their guests can be held legally responsible for injuries or damages that may result to someone if alcohol has been provided irresponsibly to an attendee of the function.

In addition, suits for damages resulting from the over-service of alcohol can also be based on common negligence. This body of law defines “negligence” as the failure to act in a manner that a reasonable person would act under the same or similar circumstances. These types of lawsuits can be brought by innocent victims who are injured by an intoxicated person, and they can also be brought by the intoxicated person himself. Juries can award monetary damages to compensate victims for the damages they suffered due to the intoxicated person, and sometimes, they can issue punitive damages to further punish the defendant when particularly egregious evidence is presented. Awards can range from a few thousand to millions of dollars.

A case like this recently settled in Massachusetts, after a 37-year-old husband and father was killed while riding in a vehicle driven by his co-worker and friend. Both men were intoxicated, with the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of twice the legal limit. How did they get that drunk? Because they had attended a fund-raising event earlier in the day, hosted by a bar that had negligently continued to serve both men alcohol even though both of them were visibly drunk. The two men later left the bar, and the accident that killed the victim occurred less than a mile away from the fund-raiser. In what the bar apparently considered “responsible”, event attendees had begun drinking early in the day, with two bartenders serving drinks. In addition, as part of the fundraiser, a vodka manufacturer held a promotion at the bar, where the manufacturer’s employees would purchase drinks at an upstairs bar, then provide event attendees with free “shots” downstairs. Sounds real responsible, doesn’t it?

The plaintiff in this case, who was the executor of the estate of the man who was killed in the car driven by his friend, claimed that the bar was understaffed and therefore unable to effectively monitor the alcohol consumption of the event attendees, especially due the “shot girls” who were handing out free drinks purchased upstairs at the restaurant. Restaurants that are licensed to serve alcohol are required to attend a restaurant industry-sponsored course known as TIPS, which trains bartenders and wait staff on the responsible service of alcohol, and of how to effectively spot an intoxicated patron. The defendants in this case claimed they adhered to TIPS standards, and were not negligent in their service of alcohol in this case. Notwithstanding, the defendants decided to settle the case, for $3.1 million. Most of the funds were used to provide structured settlements for the victim’s two young children.

These kinds of alcohol liability cases can be awful in the facts they present. I say this as a Dedham, Massachusetts personal injury attorney who has seen more injuries and deaths due to this kind of negligence than I care to see. My firm knows how to investigate and litigate these cases very effectively. If you know of someone who was injured in connection with negligent service of alcohol, contact us for a free consultation. The more that negligent providers of alcohol are held legally responsible for these kinds of cases, the less they’ll happen.

“A dog is man’s best friend.” That maxim has a lot of truth in it – dogs truly can be the kind of friend many people wish they had in their human relationships: Loyal, understanding, forgiving, compassionate. I myself have always loved dogs (though the less noise they make, the better.)

But it’s also true that man’s best friend can get ugly at times – often very unpredictably. When that happens, when a dog attacks a person – horrific physical and psychological injuries can often result. A dog’s teeth are extremely sharp, and their ability to inflict devastating injuries was given to them by their generic ancestors – wolves and prairie dogs. Most dogs can bite with incredible speed and ferocity. Their teeth are built to tear the flesh off of their victims or attackers with their powerful jaws. That’s not how most people see their own or their neighbor’s pet, but that is how evolution created them. Clearly, some breeds, such as pit bulls, are notorious for being unpredictably violent, but as a Dedham, Massachusetts dog bite lawyer, I can assure you that all dogs have it within them to be violent if provoked.

An example of this was seen recently with the pre-trial case settlement of a dog bite case in Massachusetts. The plaintiff was a 23-year-old woman, who was invited to a friend’s home along with two other friends. Why were they invited? To bid farewell to the friend’s dog, which was scheduled to be euthanized (i.e., put to sleep) the next day. Sounds kind of touching, doesn’t it? It would have been, but for the exception of one slight detail: The plaintiff’s friend never told the plaintiff that the reason the dog was going to be put to sleep, was that the dog had attacked her (the friend) just one week earlier. Just a minor detail ….

While at the house, the friend asked her mother to take a picture of all the women with the dog. While the women were in the process of posing for the picture, the dog suddenly attacked the plaintiff, biting her face, tearing into her lips and nose. As an example of just how much damage a dog can inflict in just a couple of seconds, so much skin and tissue were torn off the plaintiff’s face that the defendant and the other women present were able to retrieve two large pieces of human tissue torn from the plaintiff’s face, which they took to the hospital after the attack. Luckily, specialist cosmetic surgeons were able to reconstruct the plaintiff’s lips by using the recovered tissue and a separate skin graft. After the initial surgery, the plaintiff required additional surgery several months later to further repair the damage from the attack. Despite these efforts, the plaintiff ended up with permanent facial scarring, and suffered severe psychological damage necessitating psychotherapy and psychiatric medication. This case settled approximately one month prior to trial.

Thankfully, there is a special statute in Massachusetts that imposes liability on the owner of a dog for Massachusetts dog bites and dog attacks. The statute is found in Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 140, §155 (known in legal circles as the “Massachusetts Dog Bite Statute”). Commonly, coverage for this kind of liability is provided through the dog owners’ homeowners’ insurance policy (and sometimes renters’ insurance policies.) For the plaintiff here, her case settled approximately one month before trial.

If no liability insurance policy is available, and if the defendant were either not willing or not able to settle the case using his own financial resources, then a plaintiff would have to proceed to trial. If successful in securing a favorable verdict and financial judgment either before a jury or a judge, the plaintiff would then have to attach any assets the defendant might have, and seek to liquidate those assets to satisfy the judgment. Doing this can be very difficult and time-consuming.

So, the lessons from a case like this are two-fold, for both dog owners and non-owners: If you own a dog, check with your homeowners (or renters) insurance company to make sure that your policy provides coverage for dog bites. And if you don’t own a dog but do like dogs, just be sure to always use caution when approaching someone else’s dog, or a dog whose disposition you are unfamiliar with. No amount of potential future financial settlement is worth suffering a dog attack.

If you or someone you know has suffered a dog bite or been attacked by a dog, contact us for a free consultation. We are very experienced in these kinds of cases, and can provide you with the best advice that you can get.

Much of life can be cruel, and even ironic. So it was that a 17 year-old boy, who was only weeks away from getting his much-awaited driver’s’ license, was killed last Thursday while skateboarding in Taunton, Massachusetts. Nicholas Silva-Thomas was killed by a car driven by a hit-and-run driver, as yet unidentified.

The youth was skateboarding on Bay Street in Taunton, after leaving Watson Park with other skateboarding friends to go to a pizza shop. At about 9:40 PM, as Silva-Thomas was skateboarding on a street he hoped to be driving on in the near future, he was struck by a driver who fled the scene and abandoned the youth, lying in the street with a fatal head injury. Witnesses said that not only did the driver leave the scene, he or she turned their lights off while doing so, to make the license plate on the car harder for any witnesses to see. No one was able to identify the license plate as the car sped away. Hopefully, there really is a thing called hell, and hopefully, there is a spot reserved for people like this driver.

This is a tragic story, but if it can do any good at all, let it illustrate the enormous and grave dangers connected with not only skateboarding as a sport, but skateboarding and Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents. I am fully aware that skateboarding has become very popular in recent years. When I was a kid, in the 1970’s and ‘80’s, skateboarding was popular, then it fell out of vogue. In the past ten years or so, it’s come back with a rage. Michael J. Fox made it popular in 1986's "Back To The Future” - though his skills were computer-animated. I understand the thrill of sports like this, and I understand kids (like many adults) want thrills. The problem is that seemingly all caution is thrown to the wind with so many of these activities: A reminder: No matter how adept at using a skateboard, no one can navigate, turn, or stop on these things with the same precision as even a bike. In an emergency, you cannot evade or escape a collision with anywhere near an “acceptable” margin of safety while on a skateboard.

Even worse, very few skateboarders wear protective helmets. Tragically, Silva-Thomas wasn’t wearing a helmet, either. (Now that it’s summer, I see this “derring-do” attitude all the time at the beach by kids with skim-boards. Ever see that “sport”? – A user throws an ultra-thin boogie board, about 3 feet long, into the water washing up on the sand. Once on a thin film of water, the person runs toward the board, jumps on it, and “slides” as the board flips forward, usually in the air. I’ve seen more kids flip upside down and land on their backs and necks than I can believe. This “sport” is an open invitation to a Christopher Reeve-like broken neck.)

As a plaintiffs' product liability lawyer, this makes me think of a very similar summer/seasonal toy that was manufactured in the 1960’s: The "Slip and Slide.” Following several successful lawsuits following the often-serious injuries this toy caused, it was gratefully taken off the market. This was one of the first product liability lawsuits against toy manufacturers.

Making matters even worse for the family of young Silva-Thomas, is the fact that, as the driver who hit the youth has not yet been found, any auto insurance coverage that might be available to compensate for this fatality would be limited to the uninsured or under-insured driver benefits that would be provided by any car owned and insured by the youth’s parents or family. Unless optional coverages are purchased, this coverage is usually limited to $20,000 per person, or $40,000 per accident.

This tragedy again illustrates these maxims: 1) All Massachusetts drivers should carry “Bodily Injury Caused By An Uninsured Auto” coverage of at least $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident (Part 3 on your policy Coverage Selections page); and 2) All Massachusetts drivers should also carry “Optional Bodily Injury To Others” coverage of at least $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident. The first of the above, (1) protects you if are injured by either a hit-and-run driver or a driver that carries only the minimum standard coverages of $20,000 per person/$40,000 per accident, but you have damages that exceed the standard minimum coverage of $20,000/$40,000; The second of the above, (2) protects you if you injure someone else with your car, and the victim’s damages exceed $20,000 per person/$40,000 per accident. All this is further explained in detail on my web site, on the Massachusetts Car Accidents Page. If you accidentally injured someone with your car or have been injured by another driver, or if you just have some general questions, contact us for a free initial consultation. We can answer your questions and provide you with the best guidance possible in this area of law.

My thoughts and sympathies go out to the Silva-Thomas family.

POST-SCRIPT: As of the time this post is being published, (Sun., 8/7/11, 11:30 PM,) I have learned that authorities in the Taunton Police Department have made an arrest in this case. Paul Baran, 55,of Taunton, was arrested earlier today (Sunday.) Baran faces a charge of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. Police say they developed necessary information Saturday night that led them to the vehicle that struck young Silva-Thomas, and to Baran. As an attorney who is also a Dedham criminal defense lawyer, I should say here that Baran must be presumed innocent until he is either proven guilty or pleads guilty to this offense. But if either of these outcomes occur, he will not only have to deal with the law, he will have to deal with his conscience.