Massachusetts Personal Injury Blog

"I Fell At Work? Can I Sue?"

Maybe.

In Massachusetts, you cannot sue your employer if you slipped and fell and injured yourself at work.  But, you can however make a claim for Massachusetts workers compensation benefits with your employer's insurance company.

However, if your slip and fall accident was caused by the negligence of someone other than your employer, than you may be able to sue that third-party for your injuries.  In example would be a delivery driver injured on the steps of a home he is delivering a product to, or a cook who slips and falls on a wet and slippery floor that was caused by an outside cleaning company.  You get the picture. 

Therefore, you cannot sue your employer for a slip and fall accident, but you can sue a third-party that may have caused, or contributed to your accident.

Our office handles all types of premises liability cases, including slip and fall claims, and we would he happy to provide to you a free consultation to discuss what your rights may be.  

'I am Partly At-Fault for an Accident. Can I Still Make a Claim?'

Yes.  In Massachusetts, as long as you are not more than 50% responsible for a car crash, then you may still make a claim.  However, the amount of your settlement will be reduced by the percentage of fault you have for the accident.  Therefore, if you are considered 50% at-fault for the crash, and your case is worth $10,000.00, then you would recover $5000.00, because of the fact that you were 50% at-fault for the accident.

Have You Been Involved in a Car Accident, and Feel the Insurance Company Does Not Care About You? Read This:

A great article on insurance companies that I just had to share, courtesy of CNN:

Insurance companies fight paying billions in claims

Put yourself in the driver's seat of this accident. You are heading down the street when a truck comes out of nowhere and slams into the right side of your car. The damage to the vehicle is obvious: dents across the passenger door.

You are hurt too, thought it's not obvious how much: a slight cut above your eye, an ache in the neck.

Your doctor says your spine was injured, you have soft muscle tears, and the pain in your neck mostly likely is whiplash.

It's going to need therapy, she says, and some time off work to heal. And in the end it's going to cost you $15,000 in medical payments and another $10,000 in lost wages, because you took so much time off work.

But when you send the $25,000 bill to the insurance company of the person who hit you, the insurance company says it's only going to pay you $15,000. You can take it or leave it.

What do you do?

That's what producer Kathleen Johnston and I have been investigating for the last 18 months -- accidents most of us don't pay attention to, the fender-benders we pass by without even slowing down. In part, we looked at how Allstate handled the claim of one woman, Roxanne Martinez. Her car was hit in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Her medical bills and lost wages added up to $25,000.

Allstate offered $15,000 to settle. Roxanne Martinez didn't know what to do.

Sure, she could try to find a lawyer. But if you were in her shoes, would you? After all, you are fighting insurance giant Allstate over a $10,000 difference. What attorney is going to take on that case?

Martinez's case represents what 10 of the top 12 auto insurance companies are doing to save money. And if you are in a minor impact crash and get hurt, former insurance industry insiders say, insurance companies will most likely try doing the same thing to you: delay handling your claim, deny you were hurt and defend their decision in drawn-out court battles. It's the three Ds: delay, deny and defend.

That, in a nutshell, is the strategy adopted by several major auto insurance companies over the past ten years, a lot of lawyers, former insurance company insiders and others tell CNN.

With nowhere to go, Allstate and others bet you'll take what they offer and walk away. It's right in the training manuals we obtained from Allstate: force "smaller walk-away settlements."

Shannon Kmatz, a former claims adjuster for Allstate, told us she would offer as little as $50 dollars in some cases. Poor people would take it, she said, fearing that if they didn't, they'd get nothing at all.

Roxanne Martinez didn't take it. She sued and a jury awarded her $167,000 dollars. But that verdict took three years.

Allstate is betting you won't wait, you won't sue and you'll take what you get and walk-away. And that, say our experts, has been a good bet for Allstate and others. Accident victims have been walking away from billions of dollars that insurers now keep for themselves.

Allstate would not grant an interview or answer our questions. Instead, they sent an e-mail saying they didn't think CNN would deliver a fair report. I hope you will watch our report tonight and decide for yourself who is being fair.

Think Your Massachusetts Injury Claim is Not Worth Pursuing? You May Be Wrong

Many of my clients, at the end of their case, often tell me that they were not going to pursue their case initially.  They tell me that once they realized the insurance company did not care about them, as their medical bills soared, and their injuries just got worse, is when they decided to contact my office.

Here are a few success stories from my firm, in representing people who initially thought their case was not worth pursuing:

-Woman goes to restaurant where she sustains very bad knee injuries, requiring surgery.  Case settles for $150,000.00;

-Woman slips and falls outside  a store and breaks one of her ankles, requiring surgery. Case settles for $75,000.00;

-Man is injured on a bicycle when the operator of a motor vehicle suddenly opens up his driver's side door.  Case settles for policy limit of $50,000.00.

Please know that these examples are intended for informational purposes only. My firm does not and cannot guarantee any specific results as each and every case is unique with its own facts and circumstances. 

If you think you may have a case, we would be happy to give you a free consultation to explain what your rights are.

Failure to Wear a Seat belt in a Massachusetts Auto Accident Cannot Be Used as Evidence

If you are injured in a car crash in Massachusetts, the fact that you were not wearing your seat belt does not constitute negligence (fault) on your part.  So, if are injured in the crash and bring a claim against the at-fault driver, the fact that you were not wearing your seat belt is inadmissible at trial and cannot be used as evidence.

This law is found at M.G.L. c. 90 § 13A.

Information Regarding the Ving Rhames Dog Attack Case

Kudos to the Boston Injury Lawyer Blog for this post on recent developments on the tragic dog mauling death that occurred last week on actor Ving Rhames' property.  Here is part of the post:

Police have identified the man who was mauled by dogs on the Brentwood property owned by movie star Ving Rhames as Jacob Adams. Adams lived on the property and had been employed to take care of the actor’s dogs.

Medical examiners are still trying to determine whether Adams died as a result of the numerous dog bites he sustained during the attack or from heart failure during the attack.

Animal services have confiscated an English bulldog and three bull mastiffs that were living on Rhames’ property.

$13M Verdict Handed Down Today in Suffolk County

Today a Suffolk County jury awarded a man $13M for serious personal injuries he sustained after being struck by a motor vehicle.  The case name is William T. Dodge v. Arda Tezel.  With interest, the verdict comes to approximately $16M.  The plaintiff was however assessed 1% comparative negligence by the jury.  I will provide more information on this case as it becomes available. 

Important New Massachusetts Snow and Ice Decision

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently decided the case of O'Brien v. Leahy Landscaping.  In that case, the plaintiff, O'Brien, sustained a fractured wrist after slipping and falling due to snow and ice that had remained on the Defendant's premises for five days following a snow storm.  As you may know from reading this blog, the only way to create liability in Massachusetts snow and ice cases is to show the accident was caused by an 'unnatural' accumulation of ice and snow.  Many times, this is difficult, if not impossible to show.

O'Brien's lawyer successfully argued that the snow and ice had been converted to an 'unnatural' accumulation by the landowner's failure to clear it within a reasonable period of time.  This case is significant because it expands the definition of what constitutes an 'unnatural' accumulation of ice and snow in Massachusetts.  That means those injured in snow and ice accidents now have an added way in which to create liability on the part of a landowner.

Massachusetts High Court Rules Against Big Tobacco

The following is provided courtesy of Massachusetts Law Updates:

In the case of Haglund v. Phillip Morris, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that the fact that a smoker knew that cigarettes were dangerous but smoked anyway does not constitute an "unreasonable" use of the product under Correia v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342 (1983) and thus cannot serve as a defense for the tobacco company. The opinion says, in part, "the Correia defense presumes that the product at issue is, in normal circumstances, reasonably safe and capable of being reasonably safely used, and therefore that the consumer's unreasonable use of the product he knows to be defective and dangerous is appropriately penalized. Here, however, both Philip Morris and the plaintiff agree that cigarette smoking is inherently dangerous and that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. Because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes. Thus the Correia defense, which serves to deter unreasonable use of products in a dangerous and defective state, will, in the usual course, be inapplicable."

Estate of Texas Woman Sues Salon for Death By Pedicure

This is a rather unusual case.  A Texas woman died after she allegedly developed a staff infection following a pedicure she received at a salon.  The woman died of a heart attack which her estate claims was caused by the staff infection.  The estate in suing the salon for wrongful death.

This is a case which highlights the difficulty in establishing causation in certain personal injury cases.  In my mind, establishing causation will be very difficult in this case.   Here is an excerpt of the story provided courtesy of the  Associated Press:

AP) - FORT WORTH, Texas-Kimberly Kay Jackson loved getting pedicures each month, especially with bright pink nail polish, although as a paraplegic she couldn't feel the massages and bubbling water on her feet.

But after her heel was cut with a pumice stone during a July pedicure, she developed an oozing wound that wouldn't heal despite repeated rounds of antibiotics, relatives said. The 46-year-old died in February of a heart attack triggered by a staph infection, said the family's attorney, Steven C. Laird.

Now, her three teenage children are suing Angel Nails and its owner for unspecified damages. The lawsuit, filed last week, claims the Fort Worth salon did not follow state regulations for disinfecting the whirlpool and instruments.

Angel Nails is being investigated by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, which started overseeing nail salons in September after the Texas Cosmetology Commission dissolved, said department spokesman Patrick Schaughnessy.