Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

Richard Silvia was driving down Route 28 in Falmouth, Massachusetts, last week when he choked on some raisins he was eating. He passed out. His truck crossed the road, hitting two cars, and nosed into an embankment. The impact stopped the truck and his airbag deployed. The force of the airbag expelled the raisins, and Silvia regained consciousness with only a scraped wrist. The other drivers also suffered only minor injuries. The incident made national news.

Silvia was ticketed for impaired driving. I guess he should have pulled over as soon as he choked and died safely by the side of the road.

Continue reading "Airbag Performs Heimlich Maneuver" »

On I-495 near the US Route 1 interchange in Plainville, a 1996 Toyota Avalon went off the road and crashed into a tree last Saturday, according to the Attleboro Sun Chronicle. The 18 year old driver was not wearing a seatbelt. She was airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where she died. The 21 year old passenger was wearing a seatbelt. She was treated for minor injuries at Sturdy Memorial Hospital in Attleboro. Seatbelts save lives -- but only when they are worn.

Massachusetts has a law requiring that all drivers and passengers over 11 years of age must wear a seatbelt when riding in a car. But not everyone obeys this law. A recent Massachusetts study found that on average more than one out of four front seat drivers and passengers were not wearing their seat belt. There were some interesting but predictable variations on the rate of seatbelt use among different groups.

The rate of seatbelt usage among women was 79%; among men it was 68%. The rate for people over 65 was 82%; for other adults it was 73%; for teens it was 67%. People driving commercial vehicles buckled up only 50% of the time, and pickup truck drivers only 61%. Those figures are depressing and somewhat scary. We have worked hard to make manufacturers put out safer cars by forcing them to pay for the injuries they could have prevented by providing airbags and seatbelts. But we have to do our part and use these safety features, too.

Continue reading "A Seatbelt Saves a Life" »

On September 30, 2010, the new, highly publicised Massachusetts law banning texting while driving takes effect. The same law bans any cell phone use while driving for those under 18 except for certain emergency calls, generally 9-1-1 calls for police or medical assistance.

Everyone agrees that texting while driving is dangerous. If you look at your phone for three seconds to read or compose a text message while you are driving on the highway at 65 mph, you travel the length of a football field without looking at the road. Of course the same is true for checking out who is calling you on the cell phone or scrolling through your contacts list to make a call, or entering a phone number to call, none of which seem to be prohibited by this new law.

The Governor's press release makes it seem like we can expect much safer roads now. "Without question, this new law will save lives on our roadways," the Governor is quoted as saying. On the other hand, a new study released today by the insurance industry shows that such bans have no effect on crash statistics, and seem to have no effect on how much people text behind the wheel. The Boston Globe reports that texters may be causing more accidents by holding the phone down near the seat to avoid detection, and that police departments are talking about getting SUVs so they can ride higher and look down into potential suspects' cars. Of course if it's the police car driver who is doing the looking, that is pretty unsafe, too.

Some have suggested that parents have to set an example and stop using cell phones -- texting or talking -- if they expect their children to obey the law, and that they have to talk to their children about the dangers of distracted driving. Maybe the "shotgun texter," a friend in the passenger seat who will text for the driver, will become as popular as the "designated driver," who stays sober and drives his drinking friends where they need to go. It seems that education may be the best way to fight texting while driving, and that the new law may be more important as an expression of what is the right way to behave than as a means to prosecute violators.

Continue reading "Will The New Texting While Driving Law Work?" »

When Tom Brady's car and Ludgero Rodrigues' minivan crashed in Back Bay, Boston, yesterday, what most people wanted to know first is whether the New England Patriots' star quarterback was injured. The answer was no, and we all breathed a sigh of relief. The outlook for the season was still good.

Next, we all wanted to know what happened and who was at fault. Rodriguez ran a red light, we were told, and crashed into Brady. Well, maybe. According to the Boston Police report, Rodrigues says the light was green when he went into the intersection of Commonwealth Avenue and Gloucester Street, and Brady ran into him. The physical evidence shows clearly that Brady's front end rammed the middle of the passenger side of the van. Brady says the light was green for him as he entered the intersection. A 74 year old woman who was walking her dogs says that as she was in the ambulance with Brady, he asked her if the minivan ran the red light, and she assured him it had. She reported that the walk light came on for her to cross Commonwealth Avenue just before the minivan came past. The police wrote Rodrigues a ticket for running the red light based on her evidence. Plus, the minivan's driver was a 21 year old with a poor driving record, though later we found out that the bad record had been exaggerated.

As an afterthought, seemingly, we heard reports that the minivan driver's 49 year old father, Rogerio Rodrigues, was in the back of the van and had to be cut out with the "jaws of life" and taken to the hospital. It turns out he has severe injuries -- a broken back -- and has undergone several operations with more to come. Local trial lawyers speculated on how much Tom Brady could collect from his insurance if Brady later found out he was injured. Nobody seems to be concerned about Rugerio Rodrigues' rights.

A passenger in a crash can sue either or both of the drivers. It is rare that the passenger has any degree of contributory fault. Rather, it is almost always one or both of the drivers whose negligence caused the crash. So to Rogerio Rodrigues, the red light controversy would seem to be unimportant. But the question is, how much insurance does the minivan carry? If Brady was not at fault, Rogerio would have to rely on the minivan's insurance to pay his entire claim. But if Brady was even 1% at fault, even if Ludgero was 99% at fault, Rogerio could collect the entire judgment against Brady. And that could be a sizeable amount.

Continue reading "Tom Brady Car Crash Injures Passenger" »

On July 15, 2010, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held in DiNitto v. Town of Pepperell that two motorcyclists who were injured when they failed to stop at a hidden stop sign could not recover from the town because they had failed to give the town the 30 day notice required by the Massachusetts highway defect statute and tried instead to sue the town under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. The court held that the highway defect statute was the exclusive remedy for the injured motorcyclists, and that it applied to the town's negligent failure to keep "trees, brush and overhanging vegetation" growing on adjoining town land from obscuring the sign.

The highway defect statute, over a century old, permits limited recovery against a negligent county, city, or town (and under G.L. c. 81 §18, the state) for bodily injury or property damage caused by a defect in a road. But it also requires that the claimant give the government notice of the time, place and cause of the injury or damage within 30 days.

The more recent Tort Claims Act generally permits claims against the government for injury or damage caused by the negligent acts of government employees. It has a far more realistic two year notice requirement. But it specifically left the highway defect statute intact as the exclusive remedy for those injured by a "defect or a want of repair...in or upon a way."

The DiNittos argued that the untrimmed vegetation from adjacent town property was not a defect in the road itself. The court relied on some old cases defining the reach of the highway defect statute broadly to permit recovery which was otherwise unavailable at that time. It cited an 1872 case applying the statute to "obstructions overhanging the way," and a 1920 case involving the limb of a tree growing next to the road which hung too low over the road. Cases enlarging the injured person's right of recovery were now used to preclude it.

Whenever there is an injury or property is damaged on or near a road or sidewalk, it is critical to get to an experienced lawyer immediately. Defects in the design or maintenance of the property may have played a role, and the very harsh 30 day notice requirement may apply. Waiting for too long or going to the wrong lawyer may cause you to lose your chance of recovery for your injuries or damage.

Continue reading "Short Deadline Precludes Claim for Massachusetts Motorcycle Accident Injuries" »