Boston Accident Lawyer Blog

In a decision that has somewhat clarified the scope of social host liability, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) earlier this week issued a decision that absolved parents from liability where injuries result from a party their underage children hosted, but did not supply alcohol at. Social host liability is the body of tort law that determines if an owner of private property is liable for Massachusetts accidents and injuries that result from the conduct of a person who became intoxicated at the host’s premises.

I’ve previously blogged about on the subject of alcohol liability, in circumstances where a defendant is a business establishment such as a restaurant or bar. That area of law is known as Massachusetts Dram Shop liability or Massachusetts liquor liability. However, when the defendant is not a commercial business but is instead a homeowner who hosted a party or event at which alcohol was served and injuries were caused by a person who became intoxicated at the event, that form of liability is known as “Massachusetts social host liability.” This liability originates from certain laws which state that social hosts who provide alcohol to their guests can be held legally responsible for the injuries or harm that may result to another person if alcohol has been provided negligently to someone attending the function. Previously, it has been clear that if someone hosted a social gathering at their residence, where alcohol was excessively consumed by a person, and the intoxicated person later caused injury to an innocent party, liability attached to the event host.

This most recent decision has somewhat narrowed that doctrine. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that underage persons who host underage drinking parties, yet do not directly supply the alcohol, cannot be held liable if someone attending the party is later injured due to resulting intoxication. The court also relieved parents or owners of the property where the part took place of any liability, if they did not know that the party was being held, and did not play any role in providing the alcohol that was consumed.

The decision involved a lawsuit filed by the family of a young woman (underage) who was severely brain damaged when the car that was being driven by her boyfriend at the time, crashed after attending a party in 2007. According to court documents, both the victim and her boyfriend had attended a party at the home of another young woman, who was 19 years old. The boyfriend had brought his own alcohol to the party for himself and the victim. The victim sued both the 19 year-old girl who hosted the party, as well as her father, as the owner of the property. In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that court records indicate that the father was not home at the time the party was held. The suit alleged negligence on the part of both the 19 year-old host, as well as her father, and sought damages to pay for the personal injuries and catastrophic harm done to the victim, who will remain forever brain damaged as the result of this incident.

Despite this tragedy, the court refused to impose liability in this case, citing previous rulings that absolved property owners of liability under circumstances where party guests consumed alcohol that they brought themselves. Writing the unanimous opinion, Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly wrote, “We are asked to enlarge the scope of social host liability under our common law by extending a duty of care to an underage host who does not supply alcohol to underage guests, but provides a location where they are permitted to consume it. We decline to do so and reaffirm that liability attaches only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol.”

Predictably, the attorney defending the 19 year-old host of the party and her father, found the court ruling appropriate. As a Westwood, Massachusetts accident lawyer, I feel this decision is in part well-reasoned, and in part lacks logic. As to the parent of the 19 year-old party host, I would agree that he should not be held liable under these specific circumstances, since he was neither home at the time the party was held, he was not aware the party was being held, and he did not provide or make available any of the alcohol consumed. However, the 19 year-old host of the party (his daughter) was fully aware of what was going on – that alcohol was being consumed, illegally and criminally, and she did nothing to stop or prevent it. While factually she did not “provide” the alcohol, and she could not have legally purchased it since she was underage, I believe that liability under these circumstances should attach to the daughter, while her father should have been dismissed as a defendant. I recognize that, legally, such an outcome is a close call, but the greater goal of a just result would have been obtained had this approach been taken.

Cases like this illustrate just how dangerous irresponsible consumption of alcohol can be, and the tragic consequences it can bring. Importantly, though, remember that the Massachusetts social host liability law does not immediately impose liability on anyone hosting a party at their home when injuries caused by alcohol occur: It must first be shown that the social host negligently allowed a guest to become intoxicated. Serving a glass of wine, a beer or a cocktail to a guest in your home does will not result in blanket liability. Negligence must first be proven.

If you or someone you care about has been injured as the result of another person becoming intoxicated at a social event, call our office at Ph. (781) 320-0062; or Ph.: (617) 285-3600, or email us here. We’d be glad to provide you with a free initial consultation to advise you of your legal options.

In my previous post on this subject, I wrote of a case now pending in Middlesex Superior Court against Wal-Mart Corp., following the electrocution death of a laborer at its Walpole, Massachusetts store. In my previous post, I spoke briefly about the tangled web of business entities that Wal-Mart apparently used in this project, and in almost all its construction and renovation projects. I’ll examine that more at length here.

According to published reports, Walmart hired a general contractor by the name of Kekoka Construction to oversee the renovation project at its Walpole store. Kekoka Construction is based in Texas. Kekoka Construction hired a Massachusetts-based construction supervisor and apparently paid him $11,000.00 to "pull” (obtain) a building permit from the Town of Walpole, after which he did almost nothing in terms of construction site supervision of the project. This practice is otherwise referred to as hiring a “straw”, whose sole function is to do something formal or official like pulling a building permit, and then disappear from view. Walmart’s general contractor, Kekoka Construction, then apparently hired an electrical subcontractor, a company named T&M Electrical of Arkansas. T&M Electrical, then apparently hired its own “straw”, a Connecticut man with a Massachusetts’ electrician’s license, to pull electrical work permits from the Town of Walpole. Stare investigators have reportedly concluded that this man, who as the person obtaining the electrical permits was responsible for overseeing the actual electrical work, was never seen at the worksite. Mr. Santos was hired along with other workers by another subcontractor, Italo Masonry.

Sound confusing enough yet? It gets even more so: It turns out that Walmart’s general contractor, Kekoka Construction, was formed about ten years ago by Walmart solely for the purpose of supervising construction at Walmart sites. In other words, Kekoka Construction is a creation of Walmart; an “arm” of it. Legally speaking, this is referred to as a “corporate alter ego.” Largely for this reason, the attorney representing the family of the victim who was killed at the Walpole site, is not only suing the electrical subcontractor and various related parties, but is also suing Walmart directly. As a Boston, Massachusetts construction site accident attorney, I welcome this approach. Walmart was apparently at the top of this pyramid, and though they have apparently taken deft steps to separate Kekoka Construction from itself in a formal, technical sense, as a Dedham, Massachusetts accident attorney, I think a strong legal argument can be made here that the two companies were essentially one for the purposes of this case. Achieving this legal objective in litigation is called “piercing the corporate veil,” and with good reason: Huge corporations like Wal-Mart try to hide their real actions all the time by setting up other corporate entities to carry out business objectives that for various legal and public relations reasons they themselves don’t want to be “out in front” on. I wish the attorney for Mr. Santos’ family the best of luck in this fight. It won’t be an easy one, but corporations like Wal-Mart – and the other defendants involved as well – need to be made to pay for the dangerous and unethical games that were apparently played here.

But as the death in this case makes clear, these types of injuries are no game. As a Westwood, Massachusetts construction injury lawyer, I know that all too well. If you or someone you care about has suffered a Massachusetts construction project injury, call our office phone: (781) 320-0062, or Atty. Kickham’s cell phone at (617) 285-3600, for a free initial consultation. Or email us here, and we’ll respond to your email promptly.

A case that’s now pending in Middlesex Superior Court involving the death of a construction worker helping to renovate a Walmart in Walpole, Massachusetts illustrates the serious dangers facing many Massachusetts construction site workers.

As a Boston, Massachusetts construction site accident lawyer, I know how awful some of these injuries can be, and the lifelong effects they can leave on the victims of these accidents. The Walpole Walmart case makes it gravely clear just how dangerous these Massachusetts construction site injuries can be: Death. But in addition to this fact, the case also makes clear just how tangled the lines of corporate involvement and responsibility can be, and just how challenging it can be on a legal level, to hold the responsible parties accountable. In no small part, this is because there are typically multiple corporate parties involved in a Massachusetts construction site accident: These typically include: 1) The owner of the real estate; 2) The retail tenant or the developer; 3) A general contractor; and 4) multiple subcontractors.

In the case of the death that resulted at the Walpole Walmart, this tangled web was no exception. The victim who died from electrocution, Romulo de Oliveira Santos of Brazil, was working with a masonry crew to tear down a cement wall, when he was electrocuted. But it was several actions and events preceding the day that Mr. Santos was killed, that brought his life to an end. I’ll address those events in my next post on this subject.

A woman in Burlington, Massachusetts has filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that her uncle raped her repeatedly as a child, then also subjected her to sexual abuse from as many as 10 other men.

The lawsuit was filed this past week in Middlesex Superior Court. It alleges that Domenic A. Previte Jr. of Waltham, Massachusetts committed the abuse. Furthermore, it states that Previte later confessed to the crime of rape, in a letter to his niece that he allegedly signed. In the letter, Previte reportedly said things such as “I admired and respected you and loved you as my own daughter…Somehow things got twisted…I had confused my love for you with sex.” Whether this is true or not, of course, remains to be seen. The niece, Rosanne Sliney, now 48, claims that her family pressured her to execute a document in 1991 that released her uncle, Previte, from any responsibility, in exchange for a payment from him in the amount of $26,500. Sliney now alleges that she did not understand the meaning of the document, because she signed it when she was in her late twenties, and had a damaged emotional condition due to the abuse. She claims the abuse started when she was five years old and it continued up until she was 14. Sliney says she had been told that Previte would provide for her for the rest of her life, but the lawsuit against him states that Previte has failed to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills related to Sliney’s mental-health problems stemming from the abuse.

Civil lawsuits like these, which seek damages for the harm and emotional injuries caused as the result of rape or sexual assaults that may have occurred years in the past, illustrate the increasingly long arm of the law. Statutes of Limitations, which bar many types of legal actions after a certain number of years has passed from when the act occurred, can be very complicated. As a Massachusetts sex abuse victims attorney, I can tell my readers that a legal doctrine called the "discovery rule," has resulted in extending the statute of limitations for these types of cases. Whether or not this mechanism will apply in any particular case can be a complex matter and can only be answered following a thorough analysis of the case facts.

Of course, this type of liability has been illustrated most powerfully as the result of the many lawsuits brought against the catholic church, beginning in Boston, and spreading later around the United States. Many of those cases resulted in sizable financial settlements to the plaintiffs involved, but those cases involved an employer (the catholic church,) which carried substantial liability insurance to pay for those settlements. Beyond the insurance coverage available for those offenses, various church real estate properties had to be sold to contribute toward these settlements. In total, a horribly tragic situation for so many of those involved.

If you or someone you care about has suffered sexual abuse at the hands of another person, and you feel that you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, call us at Ph.: (781) 320-0062, or contact us for a free initial consultation. Depending on the facts, legal options might exist. As a Boston and Westwood, Massachusetts injury attorney, my goals are simple: To establish the facts, and seek appropriate financial compensation when possible.

Most people who walk past a construction site think that the construction workers on the job there are probably very rarely injured, since that’s their line of work and they “know what they’re doing.” The truth is, Massachusetts construction site injuries are quite common. The work in general is very dangerous, and even though a construction worker can have years of experience in that industry, the physical environments are usually ripe for serious injuries to occur.

A reminder of that was made clear in a recent injury settlement reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Specifically, a 42-year-old roofer who belonged to a union tripped and fell on a piece of slate which was not cleared from the staging on a job site. The plaintiff was employed by a general contractor, which was hired by the property owner to strip the old roof surface and replace it with slate. The defendant in the case was hired by the general contractor to be the subcontractor responsible for stripping the old slate. The plaintiff alleged serious injuries in his suit. The defendant’s main defense was that it was unclear exactly who left the left the slate un-removed from the site, it or the general contractor, since both the general contractor and the defendant were handling the slate at the time of the injury. The defendant argued that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant was the party at fault in the accident. While causation in these cases it sometimes hard to prove, as a Boston, Massachusetts personal injury attorney, I can assure you that with a talented attorney and the right invesitgative approach, the responsible party can almost always be identified.

Massachusetts construction site accidents can cause extremely serious, lifelong injuries. A great many of them involve injuries resulting from falls, or injuries involving dangerous machinery, which can sometimes involve product liability claims. Regardless, if you or someone you know has been involved in a construction site accident, call us Ph.: (781) 320-0062 or Ph.: (617) 285-3600, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Or email us. We’ll provide you with a free initial consultation and let you know what your best legal options are.