William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
Construction Accident
Car Accident
Nursing Home

|

Here’s some bad news. If you’ve been injured in a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) accident, due to a bus and trolley crash, slip and fall, escalator mishap, or other accident, and you file a lawsuit against the transit agency, you may soon find that your damage awards may be capped at $100,000.

That’s because the “T” wants to limit its personal injury awards to the same cap of $100,000 that is imposed on similar judgments against other state agencies, towns, and cities. The damages would be capped if a bill, which is now before the Massachusetts Legislature, passes.

This proposed tort reform bill would assure that the T’s liability would be identical to anyone who, say, happened to sue the city of Boston due to getting hit by one of its police cars, for example. If this tort reform measure goes is passed into law, the cash-strapped transit agency claims it would save about $4 million annually. As a Boston MBTA accident lawyer, I highly doubt this claim. This agency, as anyone can see from its current and persistent budget woes, has never managed well any monies it has ever been given.

Continue reading

|

When the construction crew first heard – and felt – the pelting rain –it didn’t bother them. But when about six bolts of lightning hit nearby, the construction crew thought it was time to take cover.

The construction crew was there to build a $2.4 million gambling casino.

Bryan Bradley, 40 years old, was gripping a metal bucket when he was fatally struck by lightning. Last week, Mr. Bradley’s wife, Carmen, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in New Jersey against the construction company that employed her husband.

Continue reading

|

Last Sunday, a Massachusetts car accident led to yet another Massachusetts car crash fatality.

On Sunday morning at 3:30 AM, one Ashleigh Baudin, 25, of Methuen, crashed into the rear of a truck that was parked in the breakdown lane of I-93, with its emergency flashers on. For some reason that is still undetermined, Baudin’s 2005 Volkswagen Beetle drifted into the breakdown lane, smashing into the truck. Ms. Baudin was pronounced dead at the scene.

As a Massachusetts car accident attorney, I’m saddened to hear of this case. It just goes to show you that you must always be alert when driving, because danger does indeed lurk around every corner, literally, if you are not careful.

Continue reading

|

It’s always a sad situation when there is a Massachusetts car crash, and one would think that the only thing worse than that is a Massachusetts car-bus crash. Now factor in the fact that the accident involved four Kingston students – on the very day of their Junior Prom – and you have a horrible situation that instills even more grief in everyone.

The Kingston car-bus accident took place on Lake Street this past Friday morning at 7:15AM. Four students – three girls and one boy – were headed to school, when apparently, the red BMW carrying the four students crossed over the double yellow line. They then crashed into the front grill of the school bus.

The four students involved in this Kingston car-bus crash were taken to Silver Lake Regional High School’s football field, where they were then taken by helicopter to Boston hospitals. The only student identified in the crash was one Monica Knight, who, according to a spokesperson for the South Shore Hospital in Weymouth, said that Knight was in fair condition. No information on the other students is currently available. The injured students are from Halifax and Plympton.

Continue reading

|

There’s an old saying that “Curiosity killed the cat,” and I’m sorry to report that in this situation, that old adage is true.

It happened on Martha’s Vineyard, where a driver’s curiosity about the former estate of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis got the best of her, and sadly, resulted in her death, and that of another woman, due to a Massachusetts car accident. A third woman sustained minor injuries.

One Judith Morse, 70 years old, of West Tisbury, was backing her SUV, a 2000 Land Cruiser, down the Kennedy estate’s private driveway at Red Gate Farm in Aquinnah, when she suddenly struck a tree. Disoriented, Morse next tried to drive forward, but her vehicle then struck an electrical box, along with a porch attached to a garage. Morse then traveled up a hill and had a head-on collision with a tree. Morse and a second woman, Susan Lombard, 69, were killed in the crash. In the rear was another passenger, who received minor injuries.

Continue reading

|

As a Boston, Massachusetts injury lawyer, I’ve certainly blogged about this before, but the truth is — you can never take life for granted. Every day offers a reason to be thankful, and to be grateful, because you never know how long you have to be alive in this world.

When she got up on March 21, 2012, Cynthia Pacheco of New Bedford thought she was just going out on a bike ride with her husband. Little did she know that she was going to die later that afternoon. Ms. Pacheco, 58, was riding her bicycle along Samuel Barrett Boulevard in New Bedford, when she was struck by a Federal Express freight truck. The driver of the FedEx truck, one Mark Sims, told police that he was making a left turn when the collision took place. After the crash, Ms. Pacheco was transported to New Bedford’s St. Luke’s Hospital, then Rhode Island Hospital, where she passed away.

If you – or one of your loved ones — has been a victim of a Massachusetts bike-truck accident, it is important that you contact us and meet with us as soon as possible after such a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident. Most families of injury victims in Massachusetts have the right to be compensated for a variety of expenses and bills; these include medical expenses, hospital care, lost wages, loss of future earnings,prescription medicines, lost services and care from a spouse, temporary injury, permanent injury, and pain and suffering. Many times, the family of injury victims, in the days immediately following an accident, take uninformed steps; doing so may compromise their ability to be compensated for the full extent of the injuries.

Continue reading

|

As I frequently say, the devil is in the details.

In a recent Massachusetts medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff was awarded a $350,000 settlement, both parties involved in the dispute argued whether the patient’s health problems were the result of a robotic surgery, or simply a case of hemorrhoids.

The settlement was the result of a botched surgery. The female patient underwent a robotic-assisted total hysterectomy and ovary removal for uterine fibroids and cysts. In the process of removing her uterus, the doctors also wound up damaging a substantial part of her sigmoid colon. This required an emergency loop ileostomy, in which she had to live with an ostomy bag so that waste could be drained. The patient was going to testify that she was never explained the risks of robotic surgery. This is that “small detail” which, in effect, turned out to be quite huge.

Continue reading

|

What you’ll learn in this post: How the tobacco industry has used the doctrine of “commercial free speech,” and the First Amendment against the public interest in this country.

In case you thought that we as a society are making headway against one of the most pernicious and harmful industries in this country – the tobacco industry – I’m afraid I have some bad news. To fully appreciate this post will require that you have traveled to Europe in the past ten years or so. Because across the pond, a lot of things are looked at much more sensibly than they are here in the good old USA. Exhibit “A” on this point is the Europeans’ approach to tobacco and cigarette advertising. In 2001, the member nations of the European Union formally enacted a requirement that each nation pass regulations to assure that graphic warnings and images be placed on the front and back of each package of cigarettes. Member nations of the European Union can choose from a list of 14 to 42 graphic warnings and images – all of which communicate the very stark and morbid risk of not only death, but a variety of other chronic health risks. For a look at these images, click here. Now that you’ve seen these warnings, I trust you can see how very effective they are.

Back to the US: Here, it took decades for the federal government to come around to the reality that the tobacco industry has been knowingly marketing a highly lethal product for almost a century. While it took seemingly forever to bring these manufacturers to court and hold them accountable for their unsafe products under state and federal product liability laws, justice was finally found in a number of cases across the country, including class action litigation that several state attorneys general brought to recoup billions of state Medicaid dollars spent to treat illnesses caused by smoking and tobacco. Tobacco liability was finally something that the courts embraced. The next logical step was to emulate the European Union’s approach to cigarette advertising, and require that manufacturers place graphic warnings and images on all their packaging here in the United States. And the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did just that, recently requiring that all cigarette advertising carry graphic warnings on their packaging, similar to that required in Europe. Makes sense, wouldn’t you think? A lot of people do.

Continue reading

|

I’ve remarked more than once to my friends and colleagues that, watching just a few of the 20-plus Republican Party primary debates these past few months, there were times that I honestly didn’t know if I was watching a skit from Saturday Night Live. (I mean that.) So pathetically laughable, shallow, and completely filled with hypocrisy were they, that a local dog catcher’s race would see more highbrow performance. For any one of these pathetic exercises in mindless blathering and needless media coverage, it wouldn’t be hard to pick out losers (and by “losers” I don’t mean who won or lost any of these alleged “debates.”)

But for the title of all-time hypocrite, the current award has to go to the nutcase who’s risen to the current top-tier challenge to Mitt Romney. Yes, that would be former Senator Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania. Now, many of you may know Mr. Santorum (or Mr. “Sanitarium”, as I prefer,) as the far-right evangelical conservative, who likes to trot around the country preaching that “Satan is attacking the United States” (yes, that’s a direct quote. Click here if you don’t believe me.) No less a cerebral giant than Sarah Palin rushed to Santorum’s defense, blaming the “lame-stream media” for getting “all wee-weed up.” Imagine the deep thinking process involved in that profound comment. Now, that’s intelligence on display.

While I thoroughly understand that Mr. Santorum’s delusions – I mean, opinions – can result when anyone misplaces his medication, his tirades don’t stop with speeches about the Prince of Darkness. No, they go to former Presidents, too. Even a President who was murdered in office.

Continue reading

|

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.

Continue reading