Premises Liability
Be Safe in Massachusetts Pools This Summer
The warm weather is here and that means many Massachusetts residents can be found poolside. The pool is a fun spot for all ages, but it also poses safety risks. These risks can be reduced by the use of good judgment and common sense.
We want you and your loved ones to be safe. Sadly, each year, more than 300 children under 5 years old drown in residential swimming pools – often pools belonging to their own family. More than 2,000 children the same age are treated in hospital emergency rooms for pool-related injuries.
Here are common sense safety tips to help keep your family safe around the swimming pool:
- Learn CPR and make sure babysitters and older siblings have CPR training.
- Do not allow children to swim without supervision, even if they have attended swimming lessons.
- If a child is missing, check the pool first. Seconds count in preventing death or disability.
- Install a fence or barrier around your pool. The fence should be at least 4 feet high and have a self-closing, self-latching gate.
- If the fence is chain link, then no part of the diamond-shaped opening should be larger than 1-3/4 inches.
- Install a pool alarm to alert an adult when someone enters the pool area unauthorized. A key pad switch alarm allows adults to pass through without setting off the alarm.
- Keep rescue equipment and a phone with emergency numbers by the pool.
- If there are multiple adults at the pool, designate one person the pool-watcher to avoid distractions.
- Ladders leading from the pool to the ground or to a pool deck should be locked or removed when the pool is out of use.
- Remove toys that may attract children from in and around the pool when they are not in use.
Massachusetts Bars Must Now Carry Liquor Liability Insurance
It’s always a tragedy when someone leaves a bar after a night of drinking, steps in his or her car, and causes a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury.
For years, that tragedy was compounded by Massachusetts law, which let bars and restaurants operate without liquor liability insurance. Like other businesses, Massachusetts restaurants and bars have traditionally carried general commercial liability insurance covering on-site problems, including slip and falls and other injuries. But this insurance offers no assistance to drunk driving accident victims.
In late May, Massachusetts lawmakers corrected this and passed a law requiring restaurant and bar owners to carry liquor liability insurance. Establishments must carry a minimum of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident coverage. In other words, policies must provide a minimum $250,000 for bodily injury or death of one person and a total of $500,000 per incident involving bodily injury or death.
Innocent victims of drunk driving accidents still face the traditional hurdles in proving their cases against bars. One hurdle is strong juror bias. Juries do not hesitate to hold the drunk driver responsible. But juries are often reluctant to blame a drinking establishment for over-serving a patron, even though the law is perfectly clear that a bar has a legal duty to not serve someone who is intoxicated.
Restaurants and bars seek to avoid liability for over-serving patrons, and they typically claim they did not recognize that the patron was intoxicated. The recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case of Rivera v. Club Caravan, Inc., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 17 (2010), reviewed the legal standards for “dram shop cases.” Generally the plaintiff must prove the patron showed outward signs of intoxication by the time he or she was served her last drink. However, circumstantial proof can also be sufficient. If the patron had consumed excessive quantities of alcohol, a jury can draw an inference that he would have been visibly intoxicated. So, where a patron is served fourteen drinks in two hours, as in the Rivera case, or was served six or more white Russians, as in another Massachusetts case, the circustantial evidence is strong enough.
Personal injury attorney Ronald Gluck called the new law “a step forward” for the safety of Massachusetts residents. “Restaurants and bars will want to have strong policies in place–and to follow them–not just to avoid liability but also to avoid large increases in their insurance premiums. The new liquor insurance law should help reduce drunk driving accidents in Massachusetts.”
Click here for the full text of the law.
Thinking Pool Safety Saves Lives
Summer is here and that means it is time to enjoy the pool – and think safety. Each year, thousands of children are injured in the pool and hundreds lose their lives in drowning incidents. So while we want you to enjoy your pool this summer, we ask you to commit to protecting your children and family.
Keep these safety tips in mind:
- Supervise children at all times. If you’re in a group, it’s easy to get distracted so consider designating someone a “pool watcher.”
- Learn how to swim and teach your children.
- Get CPR training.
- Keep a phone with you at the pool.
- Make sure you have proper rescue equipment and keep it nearby.
- Keep your pool inside a fence at least four-feet tall and secure it with a durable lock when not in use.
- Remember small children can drown in kiddie pools and watch them accordingly.
- Check your pool’s drains. Suction from a pool’s drain can be powerful enough to trap both children and adults underwater. Do not use any pool or spa with broken or missing drain covers. At community pools, ask the operator if the pool complies with the Pool and Spa Safety Act.
Why it’s important:
- Pools were involved in the overwhelming majority of emergency room visits for drownings and submersion injuries from 2006 to 2008 across the country. They accounted for the majority of reported drowning fatalities from 2004 to 2006.
- From 2006 to 2008, there were on average 3,100 pool and spa related emergency department visits nationwide involving drowning injuries.
- Children ages one and two accounted for 62 percent of drowning injuries from 2006 to 2008 nationwide.
For more information on pool safety, visit www.poolsafety.gov.
The statistics from this article come from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and is available here.
Massachusetts Safety Tips for Enjoying the Warm Weather
As it finally cracks 50 degrees and Massachusetts residents get their first taste of spring, everyone is heading outside. Enjoy the nice weather tending to the yard and pedaling your bike, but don’t forget to avoid personal injuries. Here are some ways you and your family can avoid personal injuries:
On a hot humid Boston day, a swimming pool can be an oasis. However, swimming pools can be hazardous for young children. Adults should keep a close eye on children, whether in or near the water. Home pools should be surrounded by a fence that is at least 5 five feet high and self latches. When not in use, the pool fence should be locked. Keep the area around the pool free of clutter that can cause someone to trip. Poolside rescue equipment- such as 10-12 foot rescue pole and a ring buoy with line-should be kept close by. Keep a life vest close by and outfit all poor swimmers with a life vest. Be aware that the suction from pool drains can entrap swimmers underwater. Finally, keep pool chemicals in a safe place, out of reach of children.
Lawnmower Safety
Lawnmower safety starts with the proper shoes. Although it feels great to slip into sandals after months in boots, always wear sturdy shoes when operating a lawnmower along with eye and hearing protection. The next rule of lawnmower safety is to survey the yard for sticks, stones, and other objects that can go flying when struck by a lawnmower blade. Use a mower that will stop moving forward and will stop the blades’ movement if the handle is released. Wait for the blades to stop before crossing a street or trying to remove the grass catcher or discharge chute. Start and refuel motors outside on the yard, rather than in the garage. Finally, never let children under 12 operate a handheld mower or under 16 operate a ride-on mower.
Bicycle Safety
Adults and children alike should wear helmets when riding bikes. Helmets prevent serious injuries and can keep a bike accident from being a fatal accident. Helmets should be worn level on the head with the chin strap secured so the helmet cannot move. Also, when purchasing a bike for your child, make sure the bike is the right size for the child. An oversized bike can be hard to control and dangerous.
Playground Safety
Anyone who has ever fallen off a slide or slipped off the monkey bars knows there are significant risks for personal injuries at the playground. Always keep a watchful eye on children. If putting together playground equipment, make sure the equipment is assembled according to instructions and weighted to the ground. Periodically check for loose, rusted, or sharp pieces. Install safety padding, mats, or soft fill material beneath playground equipment, extending out six feet on all sides. Do not allow children to attach ropes to the playground equipment to avoid strangulation hazards and accidents if the rope comes loose. Make sure walls and fences are at least six feet away from all playground equipment.
For more tips on keeping your family safe this spring and summer, see the following websites:
Home Safety Council (Pool Safety)
US Consumer Product Safety Commission (Pool Safety)
Department of Transportation (Bike Safety)
HealthyChildren.Org (Lawnmover Safety)
Massachusetts Appeals Court Clarifies Law on Responsibility of Landowner to Remove Snow and Ice
New Trial Ordered for Tenant Who Suffered Broken Hip
Have you been injured when you slipped and fell on ice? This case may be important to you.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has granted a new trial to a plaintiff injured after falling on ice after the Superior Court justice misapplied the legal rule governing open and obvious dangers in a premises liability. The Court limited the application of the open and obvious rule in snow and ice cases.
At the trial, the judge allowed instructions on the defense of an “open and obvious” danger, and failed to instruct the jury on comparative negligence. The verdict was for the landowner which had failed to treat a large area of frozen slush with deep footprints in it.
The case made it clear: The open and obvious defense does not apply to snow and ice cases. Snow and ice do present obvious dangers to pedestrians, but often there is no safer route for a pedestrian to take. The proper questions for a jury is whether the landowner was reasonable in his or her effort to reduce the danger from an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
The case is good news for pedestrians, whose rights to recover for injuries in snow and ice cases are made stronger by the case.
For a more complete discussion of this case, please read the article on our website, Massachusetts Appeals Court Clarifies Law on Responsibility of Landowner to Remove Snow and Ice.
The case was Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium Association, Appeals CourtNo. 09-P-380, February 25, 2010.
If you have been injured after slipping and falling on ice: Please contact our office if you need legal representation for personal injuries caused by slipping and falling on ice. We have over 80 years of experience on these types of cases.
Strangulations Trigger Massive Recall of Blinds and Shades–Massachusetts Consumers Urged to Eliminate Hazards
This week, the U.S. Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) announced the recall of millions of Roman shades and roll-up blinds due to the risk of strangulation to young children from the defective products. Massachusetts consumers are urged to take immediate measures to eliminate the risks to young children.
Since 2006, the CPSC has received reports of 5 wrongful deaths and 16 near strangulations involving Roman shades and 3 wrongful deaths since 2001 in roll-up blinds. In the case of Roman shades, children may place their necks between the exposed cord and the fabric on the back of the shade, or they may pull the cord out and wrap it around the neck. With the roll-up blinds, children may become entangled in the lifting loop on the side of the blind.
These defective products have been sold at a wide variety of retailers in Massachusetts, from Wal-Mart to Pottery Barn to ACE Hardware, to name but a few. If you have either type in your home, please contact the WCSC at its website or at (800) 506-4636 to receive a free repair kit.
The CPSC and the WCSC has also provided safety tips that apply to all window coverings, not just those involved in the recall. These include inspection of all shades and blinds in the home to make sure there are no loose or accessible cords (in fact, cordless window coverings are recommended where children live or visit), keeping cribs, beds, and furniture away from windows, and installing tension devices on looped chains or cords to keep them taut. Complete information is available at the CPSC website.
Massachusetts Appeals Court Allows Dog Bite Case Against Landlord to Proceed
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has allowed the claim of a child who was bitten by a dog to proceed to trial against the landlords, even though the landlords did not own the dog. The ruling reverses a lower court ruling in favor of the landlord.
The plaintiff was ten years old when he was attacked by a pit bull named Tiny. Tiny belonged to another tenant in the same 4-family building. Tiny had been found in the woods and adopted by the family. Tiny had demonstrated some aggressive behavior prior to the date of the incident. The plaintiff’s family maintained that they had lodged multiple complaints with the landlords about not just the presence of the dog, but also its aggressive behavior. The landlords were also informed that Tiny was allowed to roam unrestrained, a violation of the Waltham leash law. The landlords claimed they had no knowledge that the dog might be dangerous.
The landlords had a no-dog policy for the premises, but failed to enforce that policy with regard to Tiny. In fact, the plaintiff’s family had previously given up its dogs because of the landlords’ policy.
On the date of the incident, Tiny was sitting on a porch, unrestrained, then ran across the yard, jumped a fence, and bit the plaintiff who was playing in the neighbor’s yard. The ten-year old had mulitiple dog bite injuries to his leg.
The Superior Court judge ruled that the landlords were not negligent, and that the fears of the pit bull were “subjective.” The Appeals Court disagreed.
In Massachusetts, a third party such as a landlord, is not liable under the Massachusetts strict liability statute governing dogs. While a dogs owner or keeper is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog, a third party can be liable only if he or she is negligent. A landlord does not insure that the property will be safe, and has a duty to use reasonable care for the premises. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff is required to prove that the landlord knew or should have known of the dangers of the dog. The landlords could not be held liable just on the fact that the dog was of a dangerous breed, but could be held liable if they had knowledge of its dangerous behavior.
The Appeals Court also noted that negligence cases are ordinarily best left to a jury’s consideration, since the cases often turn on disputed facts. Given the disputed facts in this case, namely whether the landlord had received reports of the dog’s dangerous behavior, the case was sent back to the Superior Court for trial.
The name of the case is Nutt v. Florio, Appeals Court No. 08-P-81 (October 19, 2009).
Massachusetts Court Upholds Verdict in Premises Liability Case; Discusses Innovative Jury Techniques and Question of “Control”
On August 29, 2003, several people suffered personal injuries and one person was killed when an improperly secured gate arm at the Gillette Stadium in Foxboro swung into a bus traveling on an access road. The stadium, which is the home of the New England Patriots, is on property managed by Foxboro Realty Associates, LLC, with security provided by Apollo Security, Inc,. parking operations managed by Standard Parking Systems.
According to the evidence, the accident occurred when the gate arm was not properly secured by its three pound pin, and a gust of wind blew it from the open position. The evidence demonstrated that Foxboro Realty Associates had promulgated a policy on securing the gate, but had failed to put the policy in writing. It was the job of Apollo to unlock the gate and the job of Standard to open and secure the gates at the appropriate times.
After a trial lasting several weeks, the plaintiff (who was the wife of the deceased passenger from the van) was awarded $4,400,000 for her husband’s conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death arising from the negligence of the defendants.
There were two issues on appeal: The instructions the trial judge gave the jury about discussing the evidence; and the issue of control, and whether Foxboro had sufficient control over the parking operations to be found negligent for the actions of its indpendent contractor.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the judge’s instructions to the jury that they could discuss the evidence in the case during the trial (which is most unusual in Massachusetts) were improper, because such discussions can only be allowed in civil cases when all parties agree. One party had objected. However, the court found that the error was harmless, because the evidence of the defendant’s negligence was very strong.
The Court also ruled that the trial judge had given proper instructions to the jury on control. Under Massachusetts law, an employer is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor unless the employer “retained some level of control over the manner inwhich the work was performed.” The judge had instructed the jury that the employer could be found liable if it failed to exercise its control with reasonable care. The judge’s instructions were found to be consistent with Massachusetts law, and the judge was not required to give the instructions requested by one of the defendants.
The case is Kelly v. Roxboro Realty Associates, LLC, 454 Mass. 306 (2009).
New Information in Fatal Gas Explosion in Somerset, Massachusetts
Information uncovered by news teams investigating the fatal gas explosion in Somerset, Massachusetts on February 19, 2009, indicates that damage to a gas main, perhaps from construction activity, may have been a cause of the terrible accident.
Residents in the vicinity of the explosion had reported the smell of gas, and the New England Gas Company was in the area investigating, knocking on doors in the neighborhood. However, within twenty minutes of the arrival of gas company crews, the home of 62-year old Rose Marie Rebello exploded, then erupted in flames. Ms. Rebello and her dog both died, and a firefighter and a utility worker were injured. Homes in the area suffered damage, and hundreds of residents were forced to evacuate. Six homes were rendered uninhabitable, and dozens of others were damaged.
Investigators discovered that a 200-foot long section of the gas main, which was installed over 40 years ago, was “damaged and breached,” possibly by later construction activities. The damage may have been done during the installation of a sewer main and the tie-ins in the neighborhood, though that work was done in the 1970s.
It was the third Massachusetts explosion in three months. One man died in Scituate in December, and another man was seriously injured in January in Gloucester. This is a sharp increase in the accident rate in Massachusetts compared to the previous ten years. Another man was killed in a gas explosion in his home in Manchester, NH, on February 24, 2009. Aging infrastructure and the need for greater maintenance are probably significant factors in gas explosions.
Death of 82-Year-Old Woman in MBTA Escalator Accident in Boston Investigated
An 82-year-old woman has died following an escalator accident at the MBTA State Street Station in Boston. According to initial reports, the woman fell on the escalator and her clothing became entangled in the machinery.
The accident is being investigated by the MBTA, the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety, which is in charge of escalator inspections, and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office.
According to news reports, the woman, who was traveling to an eye appointment on the MBTA, was riding the escalator up from the platform. She was near the top of the escalator when she apparently fell, and her clothing became tangled in the escalator machinery. News reports also indicate that she suffered a heart attack, but it is not clear whether that heart attack was before or as a result of the accident.
MBTA escalators have been the cause of accidents and wrongful death in the past. An East Boston man died on an MBTA escalator when his sweatshirt hood got caught in an escalator in Cambridge. A three-year-old boy suffered severe leg injuries on the old Aquarium Blue Line stop’s escalator in Boston. Several people were injured in a Back Bay escalator accident when the escalator suddenly stopped, hurling the passengers down the stairs. The Aquarium T escalator, and the escalators at Back Bay have frequent scenes of accidents.
Escalator inspections are conducted by the state each year, and the escalator involved was reportedly also inspected each week and maintained on a monthly basis. The record of this escalator has not yet been made public.
Common Causes of Escalator Accidents
Escalators are large powerful machines, and riders take for granted that they are designed and maintained for safe operation. Some types of escalator accidents are common, however.
- Missing teeth in the comb plates cause entrapment of shoes with severe foot injuries
- Contact with the side of the escalator can cause injuries to feet and legs when body parts get caught. These injuries are most common in children
- Sudden stops caused by machinery failure can pitch riders down the the metal stairs
- Sudden speeding-up or slowing-down can also cause people to fall on escalators
- Entanglement of clothing in gaps in the machinery can involve shoe laces, clothing, backpacks, and even shoes themselves. For example, there has been an increase in accidents reported in children wearing Croc rubber sandals.
Thousands of people are treated each year for escalator injuries and deaths, many of which result of the negligent maintenance of escalators, or the defective design of the machinery itself.
Additional Resources
Crocs Can Pose Danger on Escalators, ABC News