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

|

In my previous post on this topic – “tort reform” – I explained how and where the misinformation campaign of tort reform was developed: the liability insurance industry. I also explained that this campaign has been so successful, that a national bar association that has existed for over 60 years, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) apparently felt that the public perception of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers had been so damaged by this misinformation campaign, and public opinion of trial lawyers had sunk so low as a result, that it actually decided to change its name to the “American Association for Justice” (AAJ.) If you click on the link for AAJ, you will notice that the Home Page lists the AAJ as “Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) due to the insistence of many trial lawyers who are proud of ATLA’s name.

The campaign for tort reform has taken a thousand stories of the civil jury system, and twisted them like a pretzel to portray a civil liability system that is “out of control”, awarding “outrageous jury verdicts” to “questionable plaintiffs”. All of this, of course, reflects the main objective of the insurance industry’s campaign, which is to frighten people into believing that their liability insurance premiums – whether for automobile insurance, homeowners’ insurance, medical malpractice coverage, municipal liability, corporate liability or any kind of liability insurance offered in this country – are high because of a “lawsuit crisis”, caused by “greedy tort lawyers.” Why does the liability insurance industry want to do this? Why are they spending tens of millions of policyholders’ dollars to create public pressure to pass tort reform legislation wherever they can?

A simple one-word answer, and I know you’ve all heard it before: Money. You see, (here’s a link to a good book explaining this,) “tort reform” basically dismantles the civil jury system – the system that decides whether a person or company is liable for someone else’s injuries, and if so how much should be paid to compensate the victim of those injuries. What this “reform” does, is take away your legal rights to sue a defendant in court for your injuries, such as a car accident, a dog bite, or a slip and fall injury. And if “reform” passes? If you’re still lucky enough to be able to file a suit against someone who has injured you, the damages that you would have received earlier (before “reform”) would be capped, or limited to a maximum amount. And if that amount is not enough to compensate you for perhaps lifelong injuries you might have suffered, such as in a medical malpractice case or nursing home neglect or abuse case? Tough. You’d be out of legal options, out of luck, and out of money.

Continue reading

|

Before I started practicing law twenty years ago as a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, I worked as Public Affairs Counsel (lobbyist) and Media Spokesperson for the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys. MATA is the state bar association for plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers (lawyers who represent injury victims who have been harmed due to someone else’s negligence,) and is the state affiliate of the American Association for Justice. Here is where this story gets a little interesting: The AAJ used to be known for many, many years as the “American Association of Trial Lawyers of America” – ATLA – but several years ago, they changed their name to the “American Association for Justice”, after decades of being widely known as ATLA. Care to take a guess why the name change?

My readers who follow the issue of tort reform will know the answer. And that answer, quite sadly, is this: Polls and study groups had indicated that the public image of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers (or tort lawyers,) had sunk so low in the public’s mind, that ATLA felt that they needed to take the words “trial lawyers” out of their name. (A disclaimer: I do not speak here for the AAJ, and I do not know for an indisputable “fact” that this was the reason the association changed its name, but most plaintiffs’ trial lawyers would privately tell you, that was the reason.) And prey tell, why had the public’s perception and public opinion of trial lawyers reportedly sunk so low as to prompt this name change? Is what the members of my profession do so un-admired, so low, that a national bar association would want to change its name to take out the words “trial lawyers”? Is what we as trial lawyers do in helping injury victims recover a fair measure of compensation and justice from the negligent party who caused their injuries so shameful, so disreputable? Is fighting insurance companies who would be only too glad to offer someone who has been injured, crumbs for financial compensation, so distasteful?

The answer to all these questions is, obviously, a resounding “No.” So why, then, has the perception of a once-admired and esteemed profession been so defamed, so damaged? The answer comes down to three words: liability insurance companies. More accurately, two words: tort reform. You see, for almost every damages award or settlement that is paid in a personal injury or tort case, there is an insurance company that pays that award or settlement amount on behalf of the defendant that is found to be responsible (legally liable) for those damages. Whether the case involves a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident, a premises liability, or a medical malpractice case, 99% of the time, an insurance company – who has been paid premiums by the defendant (its policyholder) to provide that very coverage – pays the award or settlement. And guess what? Despite the fact that liability insurance companies are in business to do just that – pay for damages when their insured negligently harms someone – they don’t like paying out money. Of course, these are the very companies, like AIG, that took billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars in bailout money.

So, what do you when you’re the liability insurance industry (comprised of companies like AIG,) and you don’t like paying for the negligent acts of your customers? Well, one way is to adopt an aggressive trial approach and combative legal strategy toward every personal injury claim that comes before you, and refuse to pay almost anything but the smallest sum, but that’s a piecemeal approach. No, the liability insurance industry knew that a much larger-scale attack would be needed to pad their profits even more – a strategy that wouldn’t just address cases on an individual basis – but on a societal, national level.

Enter the concept and campaign for “tort reform”. What’s that? A coordinated, sophisticated, public relations misinformation campaign, specifically designed to convince all manner of people and business sectors that the reason their insurance premiums are so high, is “frivolous lawsuits”, “runaway jury verdicts” and “greedy tort lawyers.” The objective: Stoke public anger toward tort lawyers. Make every car & motor vehicle owner, every home owner, every municipality, every doctor, every hospital, every charity, every business from a mom-and-pop store to Microsoft Corporation, think that their high insurance premiums are due to a “lawsuit crisis.” Bring this misinformation and smear campaign to such a fever pitch that even the mention of the words “trial lawyer” will prompt resentment and distaste.

And that’s why such a distinguished bar association like ATLA, apparently felt it was forced to change its name, taking out the words “trial lawyers.”

As a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer who used to specialize in responding to the media about this misinformation, I can assure you that this campaign has been, and continues to be, one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the American public in decades, and I’ll discuss ‘Exhibit A’ in that evidence file, in my next post.
Continue reading

|

My post today is not about a case decision or a new law, but about a person I know who qualifies in my opinion as one of the finest trial lawyers, and finest people, I know. His name is Leo Boyle. A founding partner of Meehan, Boyle, Black & Bogdanow in Boston, most people outside of legal circles might not know that name, but he is one of the true unsung heroes of our day – for several reasons.

First, Leo has dedicated his life to fighting for the “little guy” in society: The person who has been injured because of someone else’s negligence – be it a corporation or another unknown person. Regardless of who injured such a person, he or she had to go up against powerful corporate and insurance interests to achieve a measure of justice. That’s how our civil justice (civil liability) system works: 95% of the time, when an injured person sues a company or another person for negligently injuring them or worse, causing death to a loved one, it is an insurance company or corporate interest that defends the claim. And trust me, as a Boston injury lawyer who represents people who have suffered terrible injuries, I can assure you: Those insurance companies and corporate interests fight hard. The typical injury victim is usually an unknown person, without much power or influence: Literally David up against a huge corporate Goliath. Without a dedicated, talented lawyer to take up their cause, they don’t stand a chance. To employ some slang parlance, they’re toast.

Enter a man like Leo Boyle. Leo has spent his entire career fighting for the “little guy” – with incredible results. More lawyers should be like Leo; I know I’ve tried to be. Fortunately, I had the chance to observe and get to know Leo almost 25 years ago, when I was Public Affairs and Media Counsel for the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA,) and Leo was on the Board of Governors. He’s always been a source of wisdom and advice to me. Recently, the American Association for Justice honored Leo by bestowing upon him the Leonard M. Ring Champion of Justice award in Washington, D.C. While the AAJ honored Leo for many different instances of justice that he has achieved for so many over the years, the award centered on Leo’s actions when he was President of the national bar association in 2001, when it was then known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA.)

Continue reading

|

Here’s a story of an interesting case involving a Massachusetts Wrongful Death claim. On December 9, 2000, the unthinkable happened to a young couple living in central Massachusetts.

Sherylann Miller, a 38 year-old married woman and the mother of a young girl, had been hired as a restaurant manager by a local KFC-Taco Bell franchise. The store site was still under construction, on Main Street in Clinton, and Ms. Miller was accepting job applications from prospective employees as the site was still being constructed on Dec. 9, 2000, the last day of her life. It was the last day of her life because a particularly pathetic excuse of a human being by the name of Quillie Merle Spray III, a 36-year-old tile setter from Oklahoma who had been hired by the restaurant’s general contractor to work in the restaurant at the time of the slaying, attacked Ms. Miller without any provocation, inflicting six fatal stab wounds to her head and neck. While this psychotic waste of space was later convicted of first-degree murder in Mrs. Miller’s death and sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole, Mrs. Miller is still dead, and this psychotic murderer clearly should never been hired by the General Contractor who hired him. The victim’s husband, Thomas G. Miller was left a widow, and their daughter left without a mother. While, thankfully, criminal justice was served in the conviction of this psychotic murderer, should these victims be left without any civil remedy here?

As a Massachusetts Wrongful death attorney, I can assure you the answer is No. Enter a civil lawsuit against the responsible parties, for “Wrongful Death.” Thomas Miller did just that, filing the civil suit in 2003 as administrator of the estate of his late wife, Sherylann Miller. Named as defendants in the suit were the now-murder convict, Quillie Merle Spray; his brother, Gary Spray, who was working with him at the time of the slaying; and Boss Contractors Inc. of New Hampshire, the general contractor for the restaurant construction.

The suit, which included claims for negligent and grossly negligent wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, accused the defendants of negligently failing to protect Mrs. Miller from her killer. Her husband alleged in the lawsuit that Quillie Merle Spray III was a substance abuser with a criminal record and a propensity for violence, and that the civil defendants who had control over this restaurant construction could have and should have known this (a principal legal test of negligence in Massachusetts.)

In what is probably a sign of the increased resistance of insurance companies to settle civil tort claims nowadays that clearly call for pre-trial settlement, the defendants and their insurers would not settle this case before trial, and the case proceeded to trial in Worcester Superior Court. At the 11th hour, a settlement was reached this past Tuesday, while the jury was in its second day of deliberations. The trial was entering its fourth week and the jury’s deliberations came to a close without a verdict after the settlement was negotiated. The financial terms of the agreement are confidential.

If you’ll take a look at my website, under the “Wrongful Death” Section of our Practice Descriptions, you’ll see that a wrongful death suit is a particular kind of “tort”: A wrongful death suit differs from other Massachusetts personal injury lawsuits such as product liability, construction site accidents, car accidents, medical malpractice and premises liability/slip and fall cases, in that the actual victim (called the “decedent”) is not bringing the suit. Rather, it is usually a family member or a representative of the deceased victim’s estate. A wrongful death suit alleges that the victim’s death would not have occurred but for the actions or inactions of the civil defendants, and this type of suit seeks the recovery of monetary damages for the surviving family’s or the estate’s benefit as a result of the victim’s death.

Money can never replace the loss of a loved one. Once a tragedy like this strikes, the only thing the law can do is to provide a judicial remedy, assuming negligence can be established on the part of another party, for family members left behind. A wrongful death suit in Massachusetts allows a potential award of damages for the economic and non-economic harm done to the victim’s family. While expert testimony can usually estimate the loss of present and future income potential that a deceased victim of wrongful death would have earned for his or her family, as well as for medical expenses related to the victim’s death, “non-economic” damages compensate the victim’s family for the loss of companionship, love and affection that they will suffer as a result of the victim’s death.

In order to bring a Massachusetts Wrongful Death suit, the suit must be filed prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, or the suit will be forever barred in the future. Hence, if you have lost a loved one due to what you suspect may be the negligence of another, it is extremely important that you speak with a qualified wrongful death attorney as soon as possible after the event which caused the victim’s death. We are very experienced in this area of litigation, and you are encouraged to contact us for a free, no obligation consultation.
Continue reading

|

In yet another example of how dangerous everyday driving can be, a 32-year-old Dedham woman was killed earlier this week as the result of injuries she received after being struck by another car. Making this death even worse, were the circumstances under which the tragedy occurred: A neighbor drove his SUV into a birthday party being held for the victim’s five year-old daughter, and the victim, Kimberly McGinley, was struck by the SUV while she was trying to get other children attending the party out of the SUV’s path. Despite efforts by emergency personnel at the accident scene and by doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, Ms. McGinley died.

Now, a 32 year-old woman is dead, and a 5 year-old child motherless. As a Boston car accident lawyer, I see these tragedies all too frequently. The lifelong damage they cause is incalculable. According to police investigators, Zeggai S. Malu, 71, of Somerville, drove his Nissan Pathfinder across the sidewalk at 21 Munroe Street, then onto the lawn at 25 Munroe. The SUV struck McGinley and a 2-year-old Roslindale child, police said. The boy was found under the car, but was not pinned. The child is still at Massachusetts General Hospital, but is in stable condition. The operator of the SUV, Mr. Malu, has cooperated with investigators, police said. Preliminary indications are that speed, drugs or alcohol were not involved, according to police.

This preliminary report underscores the reality that while driving under the influence is a terrible problem in our society, it doesn’t take drunk driving to inflict the kind of tragedy witnessed here: All it takes is taking your attention off the road for a split second, and the results can be devastating. In my practice, I see this happen all the time. It can happen to anyone. While no charges have been filed against this operator, his driver’s license has been suspended for, among other reasons, Operating To Endanger.

When a victim or a victim’s family comes to our firm, as Boston, Massachusetts car accident lawyers, we activate an entire team to help them. We cannot turn time back and prevent the accident. We cannot bring back a loved one who has been lost due to someone else’s negligent driving. No lawyer can. But we can, and do, act rapidly to ensure that the victim recovers as much financial compensation as possible under the circumstances. That is one of the key reasons why automobile tort law exists as a distinct type of legal practice; it is why auto insurance is compulsory in Massachusetts – to ensure minimum amounts of insurance are available to compensate victims of Massachusetts car accidents, and other drivers’ negligence.

If you’ve been injured by someone else’s negligent driving, call us and we can help you recover the maximum financial compensation possible under the circumstances. In the immediate case of this tragedy, where a dependent child is left without a parent, the victim’s family will need to secure the maximum amount of damages possible to help provide for that child’s future. Aside from a negligence claim arising from the reported operation of this motor vehicle, a wrongful death lawsuit might also be possible (though to be certain I would need to know more facts, which at the time of this posting, I am not in possession of.)

Take a lesson from this tragedy: Always pay attention to your driving – and stay off your cell phones when behind the wheel!
Continue reading

|

In my previous post, I wrote about how Massachusetts medical malpractice occurs far more commonly than most people think. I also wrote about how some people view the subject of medical malpractice as largely an exaggeration cooked up by plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers. That viewpoint is extremely false. To illustrate a very probative and illustrative example, in my last post I introduced the first-hand account of a doctor who herself witnessed a shocking example of medical malpractice. The doctor’s name is Amy Tuteur, an obstetrician-gynecologist, who was educated at Harvard College and received her medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. She is a former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School. Earlier this year, in April of 2009, Dr. Tuteur posted a story on www.salon.com, entitled “They committed malpractice on my dad … and got away with it.” Not only was the malpractice shocking, it was tragic: It was her own father who died, at the hands of her own medical colleagues within the very hospital she worked in. What follows are excerpts from the rest of her story.

“(Following the discovery of the medical negligence that condemned her father to incurable cancer,) I had two questions: How had this happened? And why did (my father’s doctors) lie about it? Speaking with all the people involved, I was able to piece together what had happened. As part of the routine preparations for the bladder surgery, my father went to the hospital for pre-operative testing the day before. The hospital staff drew blood, did an EKG and took a chest x-ray. That night, he received a call: There had been a problem with the chest x-ray. Could he stop and have another one done the next morning before he presented for his surgery?

My father assumed that the problem had been technical; perhaps the X-ray was too light or too dark. He reported the next morning, as requested, for his repeat chest x-ray and headed off for surgery. The surgery went well. The bladder stones were easily removed and he recovered quickly and completely. What my father did not know is that he had been asked to have a repeat chest X-ray because the original X-ray had shown a small abnormal area on his left lung. The radiologist could not be certain about the identity of the abnormality, but strongly suspected that it was cancer. The repeat film confirmed that it was, indeed, cancer. Why had (my father’s doctors) failed to tell him of his cancer diagnosis? Because every doctor (involved in the case) had thought that the job of telling the patient this news, belonged to someone else. The radiologist thought that the urologist would tell my father, since the urologist had ordered the x-ray. The urologist thought that the radiologist would alert my father if there were anything abnormal on the x-ray. The anesthesiologist was aware that the chest x-ray showed a small cancer, but assumed that either the urologist or the radiologist had told my father. The radiologist actually sent the urologist the x-ray report, which mentioned the cancer, but the as the urologist admitted at trial years later, he had never looked at it.

Why did the doctors lie about it? To this day, I can’t figure it out. When I confronted the primary care doctor he claimed that they did it to “protect” my father. They didn’t want to “lower his morale.” Obviously, this was an excuse, because no one wanted to admit what had (really) happened, and because they wanted to protect each other. (Editor’s note: Doctors do this frequently. Don’t be surprised.) The part I can’t figure out is how they thought they would (successfully) keep it a secret: I worked at the same hospital. I had complete access to all the records, including the X-ray, yet somehow they imagined I would never look. Despite multiple types of aggressive chemotherapy, my father died, gasping for air, 8 weeks to the day after the second chest X-ray. What’s (so) difficult to believe is that his doctors had known for months that he had cancer, but they had “forgotten” to (even) tell him.”

Even though this is a true story, and the words no less of a doctor, supporters of medical malpractice and tort reform (translation: medical malpractice insurance companies that would like to restrict or outright eliminate a victim’s right to sue for medical negligence,) will likely brush off stories like this as an anomaly. Trust me, I’ve heard every excuse in the book: “It doesn’t happen statistically that often.” “Plaintiffs’ tort lawyers are suing doctors left and right, and we need to restrict the ability of people to file law suits.” “Medical malpractice jury awards and settlements are driving up the cost of doctors’ liability insurance.” Because of plaintiffs’ lawsuits and jury awards, doctors are abandoning the practice of medicine, leaving patients high and dry.” The high cost of health care is due to plaintiffs’ lawyers and medical malpractice lawsuits.”

Don’t believe a word of this. The objective, black-and-white truth is that medical malpractice lawsuits represent a very small portion of total tort suits filed in the United States, and in Massachusetts, the rate is even slower. Furthermore, the vast majority of Massachusetts medical malpractice lawsuits end in favor of the doctor, not the patient.

So don’t believe the false stories and excuses you may hear about how medical negligence is “rare” and “exaggerated”. As a Massachusetts medical malpractice attorney and a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer with more than twenty years’ experience in this field, I can assure you that medical negligence is anything but a rare occurrence. To learn more, visit the American Association for Justice’s website.
Continue reading

|

Most people who hear stories of medical malpractice or medical negligence think those stories usually come from plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers, intent on “dramatizing” a rare and infrequent anomaly. Trust me, that isn’t so, at all. Medical negligence occurs with shocking frequency. What makes this truth hard to believe, is our historic, and cultural, faith in doctors as “saints in surgical garb”, people of almost above-human capabilities, who are above fault and above reproach. While most doctors are ethical professionals and certainly mean to do well, they are far from flawless, and some are far from above lying about their faults to protect themselves or their colleagues from the legal consequences of their mistakes. As a Massachusetts medical malpractice lawyer, I have seen more than my share of stunning examples of medical negligence.

For those who continue to doubt that medical negligence exists among the most esteemed of hospitals and medical environments, consider the story that follows – from a respected physician herself. It is the story of Dr. Amy Tuteur, a woman who placed her father in the care of colleagues at a major hospital, only to see him die needlessly due to multiple medical errors at the hands of otherwise “flawless” doctors – doctors she trusted. Dr. Amy Tuteur is an obstetrician-gynecologist, who received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College and her medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. She is a former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School. Earlier this year, in April of 2009, Dr. Tuteur posted a story on www.salon.com, entitled “They committed malpractice on my dad … and got away with it.“

Excerpts of her story follow here:

“I often write about egregious behavior I have seen during my medical career. Because of patient confidentiality, I generally cannot provide the details that will confirm those stories. This story is one of the most shocking, and certainly the most disillusioning for me, and it is my story to tell. Or rather, it is my father’s story, but he’s been dead for almost two decades, and I have to tell it for him.

On November 1, my father went to his doctor complaining of coughing up blood. He had never smoked, and could not imagine why this was happening. A chest X-ray done that morning revealed a fist sized tumor in the middle of his chest. I got the message as I was finishing up in the operating room and raced to meet him at the office of the chest surgeon where he had been sent. I didn’t have to go very far. All my father’s doctors were at the hospital where I worked; they were all my colleagues. I simply took the elevator. During the appointment, I listened as the chest surgeon explained the various grim possibilities: lung cancer, lymphoma, etc. They scheduled a biopsy procedure for two days later and the surgeon asked if my father had any questions. He had only one: How could he have a fist sized tumor in his chest if only a few months before, he had been in this same hospital to have bladder stones removed, and his pre-op chest X-ray had been normal? The surgeon was sympathetic; sometimes tumors could grow so fast that it they could be too small to detect even a few months previously.

The next few days have a rather nightmarish quality in my memories. The biopsy revealed adenocarcinoma with an unknown primary. The cancer was so aggressive that it had lost all the features of the organ where it originated; it might have been lung cancer, but it easily could have been a metastasis from prostate cancer, or indeed any other cancer. I went down to the pathology lab to review the slides with the pathologist. I remember looking at the bizarre and wildly growing cells and thinking that they would kill my father. Anything that aggressive was certainly incurable. At some point during those days, I thought to look at the original chest X-ray, the one that had been done routinely three months earlier, before his bladder surgery. I wanted to see if, knowing what we knew now, the cancer could be detected in its earliest stages. It was easy to find out. I just went down to the Radiology department and requested the film. As I was an attending physician at the hospital and had worked there for years, they handed over the film without question.

It is difficult to capture the sense of shock and horror that I experienced on looking at the X-ray. The cancer had been diagnosed on the pre-op film. Ironically, the diagnosis had been very skilled. The cancer was small and indistinct on the original x-ray, but the radiologist had found it anyway and prominently noted it in the written report. I immediately called my father’s primary care doctor to ask if he was aware of this. He admitted that he had known since November 1, as had the chest surgeon. The surgeon had simply lied when he had he led my father (and me) to believe that the original chest X-ray was clear.”

Next: Part 2 of Dr. Tuteur’s Story Continue reading

|

In my previous post, I discussed the disturbing news that Massachusetts has the lowest rate of seat belt usage in the United States. Apparently, a lot of people in this state think that unless they’re barreling down a highway at 75 MPH, they won’t be badly injured in a car crash and therefore don’t need to wear a seat beat. These are the same people who will slow down to morbidly take a look at an accident scene along the road – and drive away still unconvinced. If anyone doubts that severe injuries and death can easily result from a 30 MPH car crash, just ask Beatriz Fuentes. Her daughter, Natalie DeLeon, was not wearing a seat belt when she was killed in 2006. The car DeLeon and her boyfriend were in was traveling about 30 miles an hour when the vehicle in front of it stopped short. As a Boston car accident lawyer, I see these accidents happen all the time; all it takes is a split second, to turn everything deadly. DeLeon’s boyfriend, who was driving, swerved and lost control. Their car rolled over. “She was ejected and suffered multiple major injuries,” said Fuentes, who has become a vocal advocate of seat belt use and founded the Friends of Natalie Bilingual Seat Belt Campaign in Springfield.

Unbuckled passengers in a car that is moving violently after a collision or rollover “become like a rag in a dryer,” said Fuentes. True. Unbuckled passengers in a car doing only 20 MPH are like projectiles in the car. As a Boston car crash lawyer, I can assure you that the injuries that result from such a crash can easily result in death – and sometimes worse. (If you think that death is the worst thing that can happen to you, try to think of what life would be like, burned over 90 per cent of your body and paralyzed from the neck down.)

Natalie’s Law is a bill that would strengthen Massachusetts law to allow police to pull over motorists who are not wearing a seat belt. Current law allows police to issue seat belt citations only when they have stopped a vehicle for some other, unrelated reason. This is known as a “secondary seat belt law.” Otherwise, police can flag down a seat belt violator only when a child under 12 is not strapped in. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that a primary seat belt law in Massachusetts would increase the use of seat belts by 12.5 percent and, as a result, save 27 lives per year in Massachusetts and prevent more than 1,000 serious injuries. Last year in Massachusetts, 277 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. The lead sponsor of Natalie’s Law, state Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, noted that, “In every state that has passed a primary seat belt law, seat belt use has gone up dramatically and fatalities have gone down.” The legislation would also raise the fine for each violation from $25 to $50.

Supporters were hoping the Legislature would approve Natalie’s Law before a June 30 deadline for the state to receive $13.6 million in federal funds for traffic safety. But the deadline passed; the bill never made it to the floor. Similar legislation filed in Massachusetts has failed to pass repeatedly over recent years. Opponents have argued that the law could lead to racial profiling by giving police another reason to stop drivers. In my opinion as an experienced Boston personal injury attorney, that’s paranoid and ridiculous. Other vocal opponents include the National Motorists Association, which encourages seat belt use, but contends that “individuals should retain the freedom and responsibility to make choices affecting their own safety and the safety of their families.” Lawmakers have also been listening to drivers in their districts who embrace “the libertarian idea that we shouldn’t live in a nanny state,” said Jeff Larson, general manager of SmartRoute Systems Inc., in Cambridge.

It’s stunning to me that a supposedly educated populace like that in Massachusetts could be so blind when it comes to common sense. Then again, so many people only learn the hard way.
Continue reading

|

What is it about drivers in Massachusetts? Not only do we have the reputation of being among the least civilized drivers in the nation, apparently we are also among the least intelligent: Recent statistics indicate that Massachusetts is the state with the lowest percentage of seat belt use in the nation. According to a survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,) only about 67 percent of Massachusetts drivers are likely to buckle up. That lags behind even New Hampshire, the only state without a mandatory seat belt law, where the usage rate is 69 percent.

This is despite the fact that the Massachusetts seat belt law requires drivers to buckle up. So what is wrong with these drivers? After seven people were killed in three separate Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents over the recent July 4 weekend, (see my previous post,) in which almost all of those killed were not wearing their seat belts, the Boston Globe took to the streets to ask why facts like these don’t prompt more people don’t wear their seat belts. To hear it from the average driver, there are nearly as many reasons to avoid using seat belts as there are people who don’t use them. Even news of these recent fatalities, however, didn’t seem to faze people. It seems that, despite the enlightened reputation that Massachusetts carries, a lot of people don’t like being told what to do. Some people say they’re uncomfortable. “Uncomfortable”? Ever try to imagine how “comfortable” it is, having your face smashed into a windshield?

Tom Vanderbilt, author of “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do“, had some ideas to explain this insanity: “People engage in all kinds of magical thinking: That crashes happen to other people; that the air-bag will protect me (airbags in fact provide much less safety than belts); that I’m only going a short way or I’m on a quiet country road, so I don’t need one, etc.” Some drivers actually think that if you are driving 20 or 30 miles per hour for a short distance, you don’t need to wear a seat belt. Talk about foolish thinking. In my more than twenty years’ experience as a Boston car accident attorney, I can attest to the reality that most motor vehicle accidents occur at speeds below 40 MPH. And the injuries and deaths that can result would shock any one of these people who think otherwise. I call these people the “WOHATOME©'” crowd: “Won’t Happen To Me”. (Yes, that’s copyrighted. If “NIMBY” helped make Barney Frank famous, I can do the same.)

In my next post on this subject, I’ll address what might be done to improve this sorry situation.
Continue reading

|

In yet another reminder that tragedy doesn’t take a holiday, several Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents marked this July 4 weekend, resulting in the deaths of eight people. Four fatal car crashes occurred in just one night.

In Walpole, three people died July 4 when the driver of the car they were traveling in, careened off the road and slammed into a tree near the corner of East Street and High Street at about 1:15 AM. The driver, Jason Wayne Spurlin, 31, of Lakeworth, Florida, who was the only person to survive the crash, is suspected of drunk driving and will face three counts of motor vehicle homicide in the deaths of the three passengers in the car. Those passengers were Nick Kelly and Anna Dubois, both 20, of Walpole, and Amanda Murray, 23, of Medfield. Reportedly, Murray and Spurlin were dating and Murray had recently given birth to the couple’s first child five weeks ago. Tragically, Spurlin will have to live with this for the rest of his life. That’s a prison sentence in and of itself; and it doesn’t come with a release date.

Additionally, five other people were killed in one night (July 4) in separate Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents. In Attleboro, another single-car wreck left three people dead and a fourth passenger hospitalized with grave injuries. Police said the victims, who were not wearing seat belts, were ejected from the car in the crash. Gleidson Pereira, 23, Ivanildo De Souza, 27, and Lavdeir De Silva, 29, all of Plymouth, were pronounced dead at the scene. Samuel Torres-Mendes, 29, was seriously injured and taken to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence. A four-car collision also occurred Saturday that killed Michael B. Lally, 19, of Braintree, and a crash in Sudbury left that driver dead.

Continue reading