Posts by Breakstone, White & Gluck
Study: Pedestrian Fatalities Are Rising in Massachusetts, Across U.S.
Walking, even in the crosswalk, is becoming more dangerous.
The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is projecting a 10 percent increase in pedestrian fatalities in traffic crashes across the U.S. last year. This marks the largest increase in four decades, since data was first collected.
The official tally shows an estimated 2,368 pedestrians were killed between January and June of 2015. Researchers expect annual figures to reach the 10 percent mark.
In Massachusetts, 34 pedestrians were killed during the first half of 2015, up 26 percent from 27 fatalities in 2014.
Already in 2016, there have been numerous pedestrian fatalities. WalkBoston, a non-profit advocacy group, recently reported 11 people were killed while walking in Massachusetts in January alone. The accidents were reported in South Hadley, Malden, South Yarmouth, Worcester, Roslindale, Dorchester, Reading, Framingham, South Boston, Quincy and other communities.
In at least four cases, pedestrians were tragically killed while walking in a crosswalk, where they should have special protection under Massachusetts law.
“The law is clear. Pedestrians have the right of way when crossing the street in a crosswalk or at an intersection with the “Walk” signal,” said Attorney Ronald E. Gluck, who has represented victims of pedestrian accidents in Boston for 35 years.
Gluck added, “Drivers who disobey this law can expect to face stiff consequences. They can expect to be charged criminally, especially if there is injury or death. But a police officer can charge any driver who violates the law, even if there is no injury. They can also expect to face consequences in a civil case brought by the injured pedestrian or the family of a pedestrian who was killed.
About Our Experience
Attorney Ronald E. Gluck recently negotiated a $1.25 million settlement for the family of a woman who was hit and killed in a crosswalk in Massachusetts. Read the case report here. To learn more about the law firm, visit our website.
.
Panel Voir Dire Embraced by Judges and Attorneys in First Year
A front page story in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that judges in the Commonwealth have embraced attorney-panel voir dire. The process was introduced in February 2015 and in the first year, lawyers conducted panel voir dire in 14 percent of Superior Court jury trials.
There was a pilot project for a group of judges to use panel voir dire in most cases, except for life-felony matters or cases with good cause not to use it. While 15 Superior Court judges were part of the program, 38 of the 80 judges ended up trying panel voir dire.
“…The response of judges is extremely encouraging,” said Attorney Marc L. Breakstone.
While plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking to use panel voir dire, defense attorneys and prosecutors requested it more frequently in criminal cases this first year. There was some form of attorney participation in voir dire in 81 percent of criminal impanelments and 54 percent of civil ones, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Attorney Breakstone predicted judges and attorneys will use panel voir dire for more cases going forward.
“Ultimately, judges will see its utility in every case as a time-saver and as a justice-enhancer. Lawyers and judges have a very steep learning curve,” Attorney Breakstone said.
About Attorney Marc L. Breakstone
Attorney Marc L. Breakstone has established a reputation as one of the top medical malpractice and personal injury lawyers in Massachusetts and New England. Attorney Breakstone has represented seriously injured clients in medical malpractice and personal injury cases since 1986. He is a founder and principal at Breakstone, White & Gluck since 1992. Attorney Breakstone works tirelessly to ensure that his clients receive full and fair compensation as well as achieve the most favorable medical result. He has been recognized as a Top 100 New England Super Lawyer, a Top 100 Massachusetts Super Lawyer and a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice.
About Breakstone, White & Gluck
The Boston personal injury attorneys of Breakstone, White & Gluck have over 100 years combined experience representing clients who have been seriously injured by negligence in Massachusetts. If you have been injured, it is important to learn your rights. For a free legal consultation, contact us at 800-379-1244 or 617-723-7676 or use our contact form.
DiCarlo: SJC tells Workers’ Comp Insurers: You Can’t Get What You Don’t Pay For
In a major victory for the rights of injured workers, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that pain and suffering damages, to which injured workers are entitled in their accident cases, are not subject to liens from workers’ compensation insurance companies. As a result of the ruling, workers will be able to keep more of their personal injury settlements and verdicts.
Until today, there was confusion over the relationship between workers’ compensation liens and damages paid by a third party to employees for worksite injuries. If an employee gets injured, he or she is entitled to workers’ compensation for lost wages, medical bills, and other specific damages. But workers’ compensation insurance does not pay for pain and suffering damages.
If the worker collects workers’ comp, then successfully sues a third party (not his employer) for those injuries, he or she has a duty to reimburse the insurance carrier up to a point. The mechanism to regulate reimbursement to the insurance company is General Laws c. 152, § 15. The statute provides that an employer can recover its workers’ compensation payments to its employee, if that employee recovers money from a third party.
But, as mentioned above, workers’ compensation pays for lost wages and medical expenses. In a tort lawsuit, an injured party is entitled to more than that, including damages for pain and suffering. In the case where an employee simply recovers lost wages and medical expenses from a third party, there is no dispute that that money is returned to the workers’ compensation insurer in the amount that was paid. Any excess, the employee keeps. But, what about when an employee also gets money for pain and suffering? Does the workers’ compensation insurer get that money back, too?
Today, the SJC said, in no uncertain terms, no. They didn’t quite say “you can’t always get what you want.” But, they did say, you get can’t what you don’t pay for. Workers’ compensation does not pay for pain and suffering. So, if an employee gets a recovery that specifically sets aside damages for pain and suffering, that employee keeps that set-aside amount. Anything else is liable to go back to the workers’ compensation insurer for the amount that was paid (minus its fair proportionate share of attorney’s fees and expenses).
The cases were DiCarlo v. Suffolk Constr. Co., SJC docket no. 11854; Martin v. Angelini Plastering, Inc., SJC docket no. 11853 (both decided February 12, 2016).
For a more detailed analysis, click here.
About Breakstone, White & Gluck
The Boston personal injury lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck have over 100 years combined experience representing motorists, pedestrians and cyclists who have been seriously injured in car accidents. If you have been injured, it is important to learn your rights. For a free legal consultation, contact us today at 800-379-1244 or 617-723-7676 or use our contact form.
Woman Killed By Flyaway Manhole Cover on Southeast Expressway
A woman died tragically this morning on the Southeast Expressway heading southbound, when a manhole cover became dislodged, went airborne, struck the front windshield and exited the rear windshield. She was killed instantly. The incident occurred in the Thomas P. O’Neill Junior Tunnel just before the southbound end of the tunnel.
The woman’s vehicle came to a rest in the left-hand lane of the Southeast Expressway, a short distance from the Massachusetts Avenue exit, with large gaping holes in the front and rear windshields. A state police spokesperson commented that the cause of the manhole cover to become dislodged is under investigation.
The focus of the State Police investigation will be what caused the manhole cover to become a projectile which killed this unsuspecting driver. Manhole covers, when properly installed and maintained, should remain in place. It needs to be determined whether any work had been done recently on or around this manhole.
Attorney Marc Breakstone, who has litigated personal injury cases involving roadway defects and manholes, was interviewed by The Boston Globe.
“I’m guessing the rear wheel or wheels of a heavy vehicle passed over the manhole, catching the exposed lip of the cover, and from the traction of the tire dislodged and caused the cover to become a projectile which flew through the passenger compartment of this poor woman’s car,” he said, when interviewed a few hours after the accident. Read the full article.
The typical manhole used on our state highways is constructed of cast-iron or concrete or made out of a combination of the two. They typically weigh upwards of 110 pounds and are designed, once in place, to remain in place. The weight, shape and fit of manholes are designed to help keep them in place when traffic passes over them. This manhole cover may have become dislodged as a result of either improper placement, improper maintenance of the manhole and/or improper manufacture of the cover.
About Breakstone, White & Gluck
The Boston personal injury attorneys at Breakstone, White & Gluck have over 100 years combined experience representing clients in serious motor vehicle accident cases involving injuries and deaths due to defects in roadways and flying projectiles. If you have been injured, it is important to learn your rights. For a free legal consultation, contact us today at 800-379-1244 or 617-723-7676 or use our contact form.
Annual Walk to the Hill for Civil Legal Aid: Lawyers, Advocates Seek $27 Million Budget for Low-Income Services
We joined hundreds of lawyers at the Massachusetts State House Thursday to lobby for increased funding for civil legal aid. We gathered as part of the 17th Annual Walk to the Hill for Civil Legal Aid. Funding is in crisis in Massachusetts, with nearly two-thirds of eligible low-income residents who seek help being turned away.
With an increase, more people will be able to stay in their homes, find shelter and avoid hardship. Please keep reading this blog on the $27 million budget appropriation sought and visit this page to contact your legislator.
Right to Left: Attorney David W. White, Massachusetts Bar Association President (2007-2008), Attorney Ronald E. Gluck, Attorney Marc L. Breakstone and Attorney Reza Breakstone at the Annual Walk for Civil Legal Aid on January 28, 2016.
The annual event, sponsored by the Equal Justice Coalition, draws lawyers from across the Commonwealth for a day of lobbying for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which provides legal aid for the poor and underserved.
This year, lawyers asked for the state appropriation for civil legal aid services to be increased from $17 million to $27 million in Fiscal Year 2017. Governor Charlie Baker has proposed $17.17 million, a $170,000 increase.
Lawyers from more than 40 private firms attended this year, along with Attorney General Maura Healey and Chief Justice Ralph Gants of the Supreme Judicial Court, who addressed participants:
“In a few minutes you will meet with legislators and members of their staff to ask them to increase the state appropriation for civil legal services from $17 million to $27 million,” Gants said. “Many will ask you: ‘How can we afford an increase of that size during a challenging budget season?’ And you will answer: ‘How can we afford not to?'” Gants’ comments were published by the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Lawyers E-Journal.
Contact Your State Legislator
Search this website to find your legislator.Find Out How to Contact Your State Legislator
Once you have the name of your legislator, look up their address on this website or you can do a general Google search.
Post blog note: Our thanks to the Equal Justice Coalition, who later recognized us with the Nancy King Award for the highest percentage of attorneys participating at a firm – 4 out of 4, or 100 percent!
The coalition also recognized: Wilmer Hale for having the most attorneys participate and Ropes & Gray and Foley Hoag with exceptional support awards. Sally & Fitch was honorably mentioned. Highest participation among law schools went to UMass Law, which had 56 students in attendance. Liberty Mutual was the leading corporate law department, with 24 participants.
Recreational Use Statute No Bar to Recovery for Mother Injured at Go-Cart Business
In an important victory for an injured mother, the Appeals Court permitted a plaintiff’s negligence claim to survive a motion for summary judgment, overturning a Superior Court judge’s holding that the recreational use statute barred recovery.
Background
On January 14, 2016, the Appeals Court in Amaral v. Seekonk Grand Prix Corp., No. 13-P-1848, slip op. (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 14, 2016) overturned the decision of a Superior Court judge which immunized a business from liability for personal injuries under the recreational use statute, M.G.L. c. 21, § 17C(a): “Public use of land for recreational, conservation, scientific educational and other purposes; landowner’s liability limited; exception.”
The question on appeal arose when summary judgment was granted to the defendant, Seekonk Grand Prix Corp., a go-cart, mini-golf, bumper car, and arcade business, which was sued by a mother who was injured on their premises.
The defendant argued to the Superior Court judge that the mother was watching her two sons drive go-carts, which constituted a recreational activity, when she was injured on the premises. Specifically, a little girl drove through a fence and struck the plaintiff causing a number of injuries including a pulmonary embolism that resulted from a blood clot in her leg. The defendant noted that the mother did not pay a fee to be on the premises to watch her children drive go-carts and was thus barred from recovery under the recreational use statute.
The Superior Court judge, citing case law indicating that the statute provided immunity from liability when a landowner did not impose a charge or fee for an injured plaintiff’s recreational use of the land, agreed, and granted the defendant summary judgment. See Seich v. Canton, 462 Mass. 84, 85-86 (1997) (holding municipality’s fee to defray expenses for participation in a basketball league did not constitute fee for public use of town land; thus, parent who was injured in a slip and fall while attending daughter’s basketball game was barred from action against town); Whooley v. Commonwealth, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 909, 910 (1997) (barring plaintiff from recovery for slip and fall at hockey rink under recreational use statute because she had free use of the rink for the recreational purpose of spectating her grandson’s hockey game and she failed to show evidence that grandson’s hockey team in fact paid for its use of the rink).
Recreational Use Statute
The Massachusetts recreational use statute provides that those who make their land available to the public for “recreational . . . purposes without imposing a charge or fee therefor, . . . shall not be liable for personal injuries. . . sustained by such members of the public . . . in the absence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct by [the landowner].” M.G.L. c. 21, § 17C(a).
On the other hand, § 17C(b) states that “[t]he liability of any person who imposes a charge or fee for the use of his land by the public for the purposes described in subsection (a) shall not be limited by any provision of this section. For the purposes of this section, ‘person’ . . . shall include, without limitation, . . . [a] corporation, company or other business organization . . . .”
No Definitive Definition of Recreational Use
The Appeals Court in Amaral noted that the term “recreation” was not defined by statute, nor had it ever been defined by the Supreme Judicial Court. Dicta in Catanzarite v. Springfield, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 967, 967 (1992) construed the term “recreation” to include “passive pursuits, such as watching baseball,” but the Supreme Judicial Court “prefaced this remark by stating that it had ‘never defined the term.'” At least one other Appeals Court case cited the dicta in Catanzarite but “in a manner that leaves in some doubt its own views of the principle.” Nantasket Beachfront Condos. LLC v. Hull Redev. Authy., 87 Mass. App. Ct. 455, 465 n.13 (2015).
Appeals Court Decision: Mother’s Use Was Neither Recreational Nor Free
On appeal, the Appeals Court noted that the plaintiff’s presence on the property was not for a recreational purpose: she was a parent who accompanied minor children, purchased tickets for their use of go-carts, and remained to supervise them. In essence, the plaintiff was using the facility for the recreation of her children, and she paid for that use by purchasing tickets.
The court reasoned that application of the recreational use statute’s immunity provision would undermine the very purpose of the statute: “to encourage landowners to permit broad public free use of land for recreational purposes by limiting their obligations to lawful visitors under the common law.” Furthermore, the court noted that the mother purchased the tickets for use of the go-carts, tickets which she could have conceivably used herself.
Because the plaintiff was charged a fee for her particular use of the land, her use was not free. Nor was her activity–monitoring her minor children while they drove go-carts–recreational in nature. Therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Court’s decision.
Conclusion
Individuals should be mindful that their use of land designed for public recreational use, free of charge, comes with the caveat that the landowner may not be responsible for any personal injury absent wanton, willful, or reckless conduct. Always proceed with caution when engaging in pickup sports games, or recreational activities that could lead to personal injuries. If you or someone you know has been injured, do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Breakstone, White & Gluck, PC of Boston for a free consultation.
About Reza Breakstone
Reza Breakstone joined Breakstone, White & Gluck as an associate in 2015. Reza has earned a reputation as a tough and tenacious litigator helping both individuals who have been personally injured and burgeoning companies who have had insurance and contract disputes. After law school, Reza joined the Boston office of Mintz Levin, where his practice encompassed complex business litigation, federal antitrust defense, and securities litigation.While at Mintz Levin, Reza received a fellowship to serve as an Assistant District Attorney with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, working out of the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court. In this year-long fellowship position, he prosecuted a wide range of criminal offenses and gained valuable in-court and trial experience having tried seventeen cases before a judge or jury, and securing convictions in a majority of his trials before a jury. Read his bio.
Message to Massachusetts Lawmakers: Time for Cell Phone Ban
The Massachusetts State Senate is expected to consider a ban on hand-held mobile electronic devices while driving. Many feel a ban is long overdue and we agree.
“Even New Hampshire has gone hands-free. It’s time for Beacon Hill to act,” wrote the Boston Herald editorial board.
The Senate is expected to consider the ban Thursday. Under the proposed legislation, Massachusetts drivers could still talk on the phone using hands-free technology.
Drivers would receive a $100 fine for the first violation, $250 for the second and $500 for all subsequent violations. Drivers cited three times would receive an auto insurance surcharge.
The bill would change the law in Massachusetts for all drivers over 18. Junior operators are already banned from cell phone use behind the wheel.
According to the National Safety Council, cell phone use is now estimated to be involved in 26 percent of all motor vehicle crashes. At any given moment of the day, 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA also reported one survey found almost half of all drivers will answer an incoming call while driving. One in four drivers is willing to place a call on all, most, or some trips.
Texting While Driving Bans
In 2010, then-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a bill into law which banned texting while driving. The state is in good company; today, 46 states and the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving. By contrast, only 14 states have banned hand-held cell phone use, including New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut. Maine and Rhode Island have banned texting while driving but hand-held cell phone bans have failed to gain enough support.
Related:
Read the Boston Herald’s recent editorial on a hand-held cell phone ban in Massachusetts.
Summary of the Safe Driving Law, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles
Read More
Many Pedestrian Accidents in Massachusetts Since New Year
During the first two weeks of 2016, Massachusetts has already seen several serious pedestrian accidents.
Last weekend, a 56-year-old security guard leaving work was killed in a hit-and-run accident on West Boylston Street in Worcester. Police have charged a 21-year-old man with motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation and other violations.
Last week, a 68-year-old pedestrian was killed in South Hadley, as he crossed the street in front of his home. In that case, the driver remained on the scene and police opened an investigation.
In Palmer, a 59-year-old pedestrian was killed while using a crosswalk at the intersection of North Main and Rockview streets. The pedestrian accident occurred about 5 p.m. in the day and the driver fled the scene.
Then in Cape Cod, a 19-year-old man was also killed when hit while crossing Route 28 in Yarmouth.
A few concerns for pedestrians in the winter:
Plow trucks. Last winter, at least two pedestrians in the Boston area were killed in parking lots by snow plow trucks. A 60-year-old employee at the Whole Foods store in Medford was struck and killed while walking across the store’s parking lot. A few days earlier, a Weymouth woman was hit and killed by a snow plow driver who was clearing the parking lot outside her condominium complex.
Parking lots. Pedestrians are just as vulnerable in parking lots as they are in streets. Last week, a pedestrian was hit in the South Street shopping plaza in Holyoke, in front of the Save-A-Lot supermarket.
Crosswalks. In Massachusetts, pedestrians who are crossing the street in a crosswalk or at an intersection with the “Walk” signal have the right of way. But drivers often fail to stop for pedestrians – and sometimes crossing guards. A crossing guard in Holyoke was struck by a car and injured at 8 a.m. one day last week.
About Our Experience
Chemical Explosion in North Andover Injures Four; Cause Under Investigation
Four people were injured Thursday in a chemical plant explosion at the Dow Chemical facility in North Andover. The four victims were suffering from burns involving the chemical Trimethylaluminum, a physician at Lawrence Memorial Hospital told WBZ. One of the victims was being treated there. Three others were taken to Boston trauma centers by Medflight helicopter.
In 2013, a worker was killed in an explosion at the same facility.
Chemical explosions like the one in North Andover are tragic and life-changing for victims and families. Breakstone, White & Gluck recently represented the family of an electrician who was tragically killed in 2010 by a propane explosion. Read why the investigation into this case – and many explosion cases – are challenging:
About Breakstone, White & Gluck’s Experience
Attorney Marc Breakstone represented the family of an electrician named William “Billy” Nichols, who was killed in a propane gas explosion while working in a Norfolk condominium in 2010. Nichols, 46, was buried under burning debris for 97 minutes before he was rescued by local firefighters. He had severe burns over 80 percent of his body and was transported by Medflight helicopter to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he later died of his injuries.
Mr. Nichols’ death was the result of negligence on the part of EnergyUSA and Smolinsky Plumbing and Heating. EnergyUSA negligently under-filled a propane gas tank while Smolinsky Plumbing and Heating failed to tighten a furnace connection which led to the leak of the undetectable propane gas which caused the explosion.
Attorney Breakstone obtained a $7.5 million settlement from the companies following an investigation which revealed that EnergyUSA had also sold its assets to a publicly-traded company to avoid paying punitive damages to the victim’s family in a likely jury trial. Attorney Breakstone was able to obtain a court-order to freeze the remaining assets.
Materials from the case:
Norfolk Propane Explosion Victim’s Family Files Lawsuit Against Gas Company and Plumber.
Norfolk Propane Explosion Victim’s Family Files Lawsuit Against Gas Company and Plumber.
Legislation Proposed to Protect Massachusetts Pedestrians and Cyclists
State lawmakers will be asked to consider a truck side guard law to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
MassBike, the state’s leading bicycle advocacy organization, recently offered an update on proposed safety legislation for 2016. The Joint Committee on Transportation will hold a public hearing on the proposed legislation, including the truck side guard law, on Wednesday at the State House.
Truck Side Guard Bill H. 3019/S. 1810
Nearly half of all bicyclists and more than one-quarter of pedestrians killed in large truck crashes first impact the side of a truck, according to the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. When a truck has high clearance, a cyclist or pedestrian can fall in the space between the front and rear wheels.
The center says sideguards are an effective way to prevent that impact and reduce fatalities and injuries. The United Kingdom has seen results: After implementing its law, cyclist fatalities dropped 61 percent while pedestrian fatalities fell 20 percent. The European Union, Japan, China and Brazil also have truck side guard laws.
In 2014, the City of Boston became the first city in the United States to adopt a truck side guard ordinance, requiring side guards, convex mirrors, cross-over mirrors and blind-spot awareness decals on all city-contracted vehicles over 10,000 pounds. Tractor-trailers have different weight requirements.
The cities of Somerville, Cambridge and Newton were discussing truck ordinances when Boston adopted its measure (and Cambridge did later enter into a partnership to install truck side guards on city-owned vehicles).
But a statewide law would eliminate the need for action by individual cities.
Bike Lane Bill H. 3072/S. 1808
This bill would make parking a vehicle or standing in a bike lane, or other on-road bike facility, a ticketable offense. The fine would be $100.
Vulnerable Users Bill H. 3073/S. 1807
Proposed by MassBike, this bill would require motorists to provide any “vulnerable user” three feet of clearance, even if it means crossing over the center line. Vulnerable road users would include cyclists, pedestrians and others who travel alongside cars. State lawmakers have considered this legislation in the past. According to the League of American Bicyclists, nine other states have vulnerable road user laws and 17 have laws which in some way address vulnerable road users.
About Breakstone, White & Gluck
The Boston personal injury attorneys of Breakstone, White & Gluck have over 100 years combined experience handling bicycle accident and pedestrian accident cases. If you have been injured, it is important to learn your rights. For a free legal consultation, contact us at 800-379-1244 or 617-723-7676 or use our contact form.