Massachusetts Auto Accident Blog

A Brief Introduction About Who We Are

 

Thank you for visiting our blog.  Two months after becoming a lawyer, I started my practice in February 2005 in Charlestown, Massachusetts and decided to dedicate my career to representing the injured.    Since that time, my practice has quickly grown.  My office is now in downtown Boston, and 2.5 years ago, I hired my first associate, David Green, Esq. , who handles both litigation cases, as well as workers' compensation cases.  We also have a great secretary, Tamara, who speaks Spanish and assists us with all of our Spanish-speaking clients.

We are extremely proud of the fact that many of our clients have referred their family and friends to our firm because we have earned their trust and confidence.  Most of all, we are proud of the personal attention we provide to all of our clients, no matter how small, or how big, the client's case.

Give us a call and tell us about your case.  We are here to help you.

Defenses Used By Insurance Companies When Fighting a Auto Accident Claim

I found the following over at the Taradash Law Firm web site which lists 72 common defenses used by insurance companies to avoid paying money to those injured in motor vehicle accidents. A big thank you is in order to the Taradash Law Firm - an Illinois law firm dedicated to representing injury victims - for compiling such an exhaustive and impressive list. Here are the common insurance defenses in connection with motor vehicle accident claims: 1. Plaintiff vehicle not equipped with headrest. seat belts, rearview mirror. or other safety device and it is plaintiff's responsibility to provide his vehicle with such devices. 2. Seat belts or other safety devices available in vehicle but not used by plaintiff. 3. Equipment defects in plaintiff vehicle: Tires bald. brakes not working, tail lights not working, turn signals not working. 4. Plaintiff driving ability and perception impaired by use of alcohol, medication, or drugs. 5. Plaintiff had hearing or vision defect and wasn't wearing glasses or hearing aid. 6. Plaintiff had other physical defect, i.e., epilepsy, headaches, sickness, etc., which impaired his driving ability and perception. 7. Plaintiff under doctor's orders not to drive. 8. Plaintiff not licensed to drive or driving with suspended license. 9. Plaintiff didn't notice defendant until impact or immediately before impact and therefore inattentive. 10. Plaintiffs recollection of times. speeds distances is so inaccurate as to indicate inattentiveness or incompetence in driving and at the very least diminishes his credibility. 11. Plaintiff exaggerates defendant's speed and other facts surrounding accidents so as to diminish his credibility which makes him an unreliable or unbelievable witness. 12. Plaintiff had warning or danger within a sufficient time to avoid accident if paying attention. 13. Plaintiff could have avoided accident if not exceeding safe speed for conditions. 14. Plaintiff made unnecessary and unexpected stop. 15. Plaintiff made unsafe lane change without warning. 16. Plaintiff gave no stop or turn signal. 17. Plaintiff backing up under circumstances and/or at location where reasonable person wouldn't have anticipated same or where it was difficult for defendant to see same. 18. Plaintiff not in intersection first. 19. if plaintiff and defendant in intersection at same time, plaintiff was to defendant's left or exceeding speed limit or safe speed or inattentive. 20. Plaintiff makes poor appearance as witness. 21. Plaintiff has verbal difficulty describing events surrounding the accident 22. Defendant acting as "reasonable person" in the operation of his vehicle including safe speed for conditions and therefore not negligent, i.e., defendant conducts not probable cause of accident. 23. Act of God or unknown reason was responsible for the accident. 24. No independent witnesses found substantiating plaintiff's version of accident or witness cannot be found (plaintiff, not defendant has legal duty to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" each element of his case.) 25. Witnesses dispute plaintiffs version of facts or substantiate defendant's version. 26. Investigating police officer makes errors in his report or erroneous conclusions disputing plaintiff's version of accident. 27. Physical evidence (lights. brakes. tires. etc.) was lost and it was necessary to have it examined by an expert to substantiate plaintiff's version of the facts. 28. Plaintiff didn't obtain the services of an expert to substantiate negligence of other parties. 29. Police not summoned to scene inferring minimal or no injury. 30. No complaint of pain at scene of accident by plaintiff to anyone. 31. No indication on police report that plaintiff complains of pain at scene. 32. No objective signs or injury at scene of accident like cuts, bruises, etc. 33. No mews! by plaintiff at scene for ambulance. 34. Plaintiff not examined at emergency room day of accident or soon after. 35. Minimal property damage to either or both vehicles involved. 36. Plaintiff vehicle equipped w ith shock-absorbing bumpers, headrests, seat belts, which were being used and which made injuries impossible or improbable. 37. No other persons involved in accident had injuries. 38. Plaintiff received no treatment for substantial period of time following the accident. 39. Plaintiff made errors in recalling his medical and/or employment history to insurance company which can be' discovered' by defense during litigation. 40. No medical opinion substantiating medical causation between accident and plaintiff's medical complaints. 41. Shortly after the accident plaintiff's physical/health condition returned to what it was immediately prior to the accident 42. Plaintiff had made prior complaints and received prior treatment to the same areas of his body allegedly injured in the accident and his complaints after the accident hadn't changed. 43. Plaintiff had a subsequent injury, which was cause of continual problems instead of subject accident and so treatment between first and second accidents. 44. Plaintiff exaggerates complaints related to the accident per his medical records. 45. Plaintiff's complaints to doctor were minimal. 46. Plaintiff's complaints to doctor were bizarre, exaggerated, and lengthy per medical records. 47. Plaintiff's complaints to one doctor different from his complaints to other doctor(s). 48. Plaintiff had full range of motion at physical examination. 49. Plaintiff had no complaint of pain at physical examination. 50. Plaintiff observed moving normally while not being examined by doctor. 51. Plaintiff's family doctor had opinion of minimal injuries, did not prescribe physical therapy or any other treatment nor did they give an appointment for plaintiff to return or tell plaintiff to "return in a month if plaintiff experiences pain." Plaintiff did not see doctor again. 52. Plaintiff's injuries totally "subjective" i.e., no indication of injury from x-rays, orthopedic tests or observation. 53. Plaintiff received minimal treatment for minimal time period after accident. 54. Plaintiff's doctor no longer in area or otherwise unavailable. 55. Plaintiff was examined by doctor recommended by insurance company soon after accident and was found uninjured and not in need of treatment. 56. Plaintiff had chronic-type complaints per past medical records or has unrelated medical problems as such as arthritis or congenital problems such as spondylosis. 57. Cost of treatment was excessive and period during which plaintiff was treated was excessive in light of standard charge for such services in the community and normal period of disability for such injuries. 58. Plaintiff went to work contrary to his doctor's advice and thereby aggravated his injury and/or caused prolonged period of disability and/or treatment. 59. Plaintiff's doctor did not recommend time off of work yet plaintiff took time off work. 60. No doctor has stated that plaintiff would lose work time in the future. 61. Plaintiff had poor attendance record at work prior to accident. 62. Plaintiff would have been terminated, on strike, or laid-off even without accident. 63. Plaintiff had no job at the time of accident and can't substantiate that he was applying at various places. 64. Plaintiff's earnings per W-2 and tax records indicate smaller earnings history than claimed. 65. Plaintiff paid by cash for prior employment and can't document past earnings and/or has no tax returns. 66. Plaintiff's alleged employer has no official record (i.e., W-2 Fonn) or other means to substantiate plaintiff's employment. 67. Plaintiff lets various "Statutes of Limitations" run, thereby foreclosing possibility of recovering anything for his claim. 68. Plaintiff was partially at fault and should recover less. 69. Plaintiff has history of filing lawsuits for the purpose of collecting compensation. 70. Plaintiff has history of mental illness or emotional problems making him unreliable. 71. Plaintiff made statement to insurance company that he was not injured in the accident. 72. Plaintiff failed to give proper and timely notice to governmental bodies, thus plaintiff s claim is barred.

Our Spanish Television Commercial

Happy to share with everyone our brand new Spanish television commercial. A large segment of our client base speaks Spanish, so we hope you enjoy our commercial. Here it is:  

Deposition Tips for Both Plaintiffs and Defendants

Whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant in a Massachusetts personal injury lawsuit, there is a good chance you will be deposed.  The American Bar Association provides 10 tips for deponents which I feel can help you if you are facing an impending deposition.  Here they are:

1. Tell the truth.
2. Listen to the question. Pause. Think as long as necessary before answering.
3. Don’t pause too long before answering.
4. Make sure you understand the question. Don’t answer unless and until you do.
5. If you don’t understand the questions, say so. Ask the questioner to explain, repeat, or rephrase the questions.
6. Answer clearly and directly.
7. If you don’t know the answer, say “I don’t know.”
8. If you don’t remember the answer, say, “I don’t remember.”
9. Don’t confuse “I don’t know” with “I don’t remember.”
10. Where appropriate, qualify your “I don’t remember” answer. Say something like, “I don’t remember at this moment” or “I don’t remember without looking at” the document in question.

10 Things To Do (and not to do) After A Car Accident

Here are some things to do (and things to avoid) following an auto accident in Massachusetts:

1)  Call the police;

2)  Tell the police officer(s) exactly how the accident occurred;

3)  Be careful what you say to the other driver; keep things to an absolute minimum;

4)  If you have a camera in your car, photograph the accident scene and damage to both vehicles (or as soon as practically possible);

5)  Obtain medical treatment as soon as possible;

6)  Contact your insurance company immediately to report the accident;

7)  DO NOT talk with anyone who calls you from the other driver's insurance company;

8)  Do not panic if the police report is inaccurate as to how the accident occurred;   

9)  Contact an attorney immediately if you were injured in the accident.

10) Keep records of all of your medical treatment;

What is Negligence?

Negligence is one of three prongs of tort law (the two others being strict liability and intentional wrongs, but more on these in future posts).  Negligence is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (Second Ed.) as "The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm."  But what does that really mean?

The word refers to conduct that is considered objectively unreasonable.  For example, if you slipped and fell on ice in front of a store, and the store-owner had notice that the gutter above his store was leaking water onto the sidewalk and that this water would freeze in the winter, then that store-owner may have acted unreasonably, or negligently, in failing to correct the problem.  It was foreseeable - on the part of the store-owner - that someone would slip and fall on the ice (or maybe he or she even knew of slips and falls in the past and did nothing to correct it). 

Or, let's take the example of an automobile accident.  If a driver is driving erratically and ends up injuring someone, that driver may have been operating his automobile negligently, because he or she could have reasonably foreseen that someone would be injured as a result of his or her unreasonable conduct.

My personal injury practice revolves around the legal principle of negligence.  My job description is simple:  I represent those that have been injured by the negligence of others.  My job is to prove or establish that the person or entity whose conduct injured my client(s) was objectively unreasonable, or negligent.

Please contact me with any personal injury questions or concerns you may have.    

Frequently Asked Massachusetts Car Accident Questions

Through the years I have noticed there are some common questions that most clients ask at the beginning of their case. Here are some answers to these common questions, which hopefully are of assistance to you if you have been injured by the fault of someone else:

1) Do I have a case? This depends on a number of factors. Were you injured? Did someone else's fault cause you to be injured? Is there insurance? Has the statute of limitations passed? Basically, this question does not have a standard response, but rather is dependent on a number of factors.

2) How are you paid? Like most personal injury lawyers, my office only gets paid if we get for you a settlement, or, if your case goes to trial, a victory at trial. My office charges the standard 33 1/3 % as a legal fee.

3) How long will my case take? Like question number 1, this one depends on a number of factors. Have you completed your medical treatment? Is the insurance company (assuming there is one) accepting liability? Is a lawsuit required? The best answer to this question: it depends as each case is completely unique.

4) Will I have to go to court? Most cases do settle prior to trial. However, there is always a chance that your case can go to trial if the sides cann0t settle the case.

5) How long do I have to sue? In Massachusetts, some claims have longer, or shorter, statute of limitations. Many claims have a three years statutue of limitations in Massachusetts, but some do not. Each case is fact specific.

6) If I refuse ambulance transport does that mean I do not have a case? No. The fact that you were not taken from the scene of your accident by ambulance does not mean you do not have a case.

7) If I healed from my injuries, can I still make a claim? Yes. Even if you have recovered completely, you can still bring a claim for the injuries that you suffered in your accident.

8) How much do you charge for a consultation? Our office charges nothing for consultations.

9) What is my role in my case? Our office will handle all the legal aspects of your case. You however are responsible for receiving proper medical treatment for your injuries, and not missing your appointments. If your case is in suit, you may be required to answer interrogatories and attend a deposition, and possibly go to trial if your case goes that far.

How Are You Going to Pay Your Car Accident Attorney? Not to Worry

Nearly all Massachusetts personal injury lawyers take motor vehicle accident cases on a contingency fee basis.  What that means is that your attorney will take 33 1/3% (or possibly more if your case goes into suit) of any settlement or judgment amount as his/her legal fee at the conclusion of the case.  If your attorney advances any costs in prosecuting your claim, it is you that is ultimately responsible for any such costs. 

With contingency fee cases, your attorney is required by the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct to provide you with a copy of the signed, contingency fee agreement.  This is the agreement that formalizes the attorney/client relationship.  If your attorney does not provide you with a copy of the fee agreement, ask him/her for a copy of same.

Five Places That Don't Require Auto Insurance

This is another guest post, this time courtesy of Miles Walker of Carinsurancecomparison.org that I found very informative and interesting.  Here it is:

5 Places That Don't Require Car Insurance

There is a new law in Mississippi requiring people to have auto insurance before they can purchase a car. Mississippi is not the first place to pass such a law, but it raises an interesting question. Where can you go where you don't need auto insurance?

Venice

There are no cars or trucks in the entire city. In fact, the streets cannot even be called streets, as they are flooded. Everyone gets around on foot or by boat. Venice was founded by Roman refugees around 421 AD. They built their dwellings in the lagoon and marshes where they survived as fishermen. Today Venice is a major tourist destination. With no cars, there is no need for car insurance.

Herm

Herm is part of the Channel Islands between France and the UK. It is the smallest island in the chain. Herm is only half a mile across and roughly one and a half miles long. Its economy is highly dependent on tourism and travelers can get to and from the island by catamaran. Once on the island, guests will have to walk anywhere they wish to go just as the residents do. There are absolutely no cars on the island because the government banned them along with bicycles.

Macinack Island

This resort island in Michigan is covers almost four square miles. It features spectacular views of Lake Huron and is a popular destination for summer vacationers. Transport to the island is by boat or ferry. Bicycles are allowed and many of the 500 or so residents use them regularly. The tourists, however, seem to prefer the more traditional transportation of horse and buggy.

La Cumbrecita

This Argentine hamlet is situated in the Sierra Grandes. It has a population of less than 200 and was founded in 1933 by European immigrants. The Alpine-style architecture reflects the towns roots. In 1996, La Cumbrecita was declared to be a “Pedestrian Town” and has the expressed intent of becoming one of the world's premier eco-tourist destinations. Visitors are required to park their cars in lots provided outside the town and walk in. Visitors can receive permission from the town to camp overnight.

Fes el Bali

With more than 150,000 residents, Fes el Bali, Morocco is the most populous place in the world with absolutely no cars. UNESCO declared Fes el Bali a World Heritage Site in 1981. Fes el Bali was founded around 800 AD and the architecture still reflects its rich history. The markets are packed with merchants plying their wares to locals and tourists alike. While cars are not banned in Fes el Bali, the narrow medieval streets are to narrow for them to fit.

Miles Walker is a freelance writer who normally writes feature articles for carinsurancecomparison.org. He recently wrote about California car insurance.

 

 

Should You Buy A New Or Used Car?

This is a guest post that was generously contributed by Dan Bodrero of Seat Covers Unlimited.  I hope you find it useful, as many Massachusetts car accident victims are forced to purchase a vehicle following a serious Massachusetts car accident:

Should You Buy a New or Used Car? The Pros and Cons

Thinking about buying a car? Wondering if you should buy new-to-you (used, that is), or a car that's not only new-to-you, but new to anyone (as in brand-spanking-new)?

Below are the pros and cons:

The Pros of Buying New

For some people, that new-car smell just can't be beat. In addition, you can pretty much pick out whatever color, model and add-ons you want with a new car. With a used car, you can't ask for side air bags, for example; either they're there, or they're not.

New cars also can give you some peace of mind. If the car turns out to have problems with it soon after you purchase it, you're protected by "lemon laws" which require that a car dealer or manufacturer fix or replace your car should there be mechanical problems with it. Or, if you're disgusted with the car as a result of its problems, the dealer/manufacturer must refund your money. Used cars? Unless a used car dealer offers some type of warranty or guarantee, what you buy is what you get.

Speaking of warranties, new cars come with multi-year or multi-mileage warranties. Should something go wrong with the car that's covered by the warranty and within the warranty's time frame, the dealer or manufacturer will fix it at no charge to you.

So long as the car has no major problems (re the lemon laws), a new car won't need major repairs for quite some time. It will be several years until your vehicle needs big repairs such as new brake pads or an alternator. In addition, some dealers -- to entice people to buy from them -- will include free regular maintenance (tune ups and oil/filter changes) at no cost.

The Cons of Buying a New Car

New cars depreciate in value immediately after you drive them off the lot. Some see their value depreciate by several thousand dollars.

And, speaking of cost, new cars can cost a lot more than a used car. Many "reasonably" priced cars today go for $25,000 or more, while a decent used car can be found for $10K-$12K (possibly even less if the buyer has the time to research and hunt for a good deal).

In addition, it will cost you much more to insure your new car than it would be to cover a pre-owned vehicle. You always should check with your insurance company before buying any car to get an idea of what the coverage costs will be. You can call your agent with the year, make and model of the vehicle you're considering and your agent will be able to give you a good coverage ballpark. Be prepared -- insuring a new car can be $100-$200 or more a month than covering a used car.

About the Author: Dan Bodrero is the owner of Seat Covers Unlimited, a custom seat cover manufacturer in Mesa, AZ.  He can help you find truck and car seat covers to fit any make/model of vehicle you own.

Can You Be Considered Negligent for Not Wearing a Seat Belt?

No, and here is the Massachusetts law on the subject:

Exclusion of Seat Belt Belt Evidence
 
"Failure to wear a properly fastened safety belt shall not be considered as contributory negligence or used as evidence in any civil action." G.L. c. 90, § 13A, as added by 1993 Mass. Acts 387, § 3.