Hubway Bike Share Program Returns to Boston
The New Balance Hubway bike sharing program re-launches in Boston tomorrow. Sixty percent of the stations will open, with the remainder scheduled to offer bike rentals by April 1.
Hubway opened last July and had a busy first season with 3,650 cyclists signed up as annual members. The system, which is partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration, is operated by Alta Bike Share in partnership with Boston Bikes, an initiative of the City of Boston.
Cyclists can join as annual members for $85 per year or use the system as casual members and pay $12 for 3 days or $5 for 24 hours. The first 30 minutes of each ride is included in the cost, with riders paying for additional time based on their membership plan.
The schedule for opening bike rental stations could be delayed depending on weather conditions. Hubway recommends cyclists visit the Station Map page of its website to monitor progress, follow the program on Facebook or Twitter or download its free Spotcycle application to their smart phone.
The Boston bike accident lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck offer these safety tips for cyclists and drivers to avoid cycling accidents:
For Cyclists:
Wear a helmet. Protect yourself from sustaining injuries in bicycle accidents. Your purchase agreement with the Hubway program also requires it. Riders can purchase helmets when they register for the program. Helmets may also be available at some stations and the program has arranged for a number of local retailers to offer helmets at a discounted price of $7.99.
Cyclists should generally ride to the right of traffic, on the right side of the road. Bicyclists may also operate in bike lanes where available and in the center of the lane. Up to two bicyclists may travel abreast in the same lane. Cyclists are not permitted to ride on sidewalks in business districts and many areas of Boston.
Cyclists should never ride against traffic. They have to stop at red lights and stop signs just like motor vehicle traffic.
For Drivers:
Watch your speed! Drivers should travel at the speed limit or slower when conditions involving other vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians warrant it. Unless posted otherwise, state law requires drivers to travel at 30 mph in thickly settled or business districts and 40 mph outside of these areas.
Drivers should take caution turning to avoid bike accidents. Drivers who are turning left must yield the right of way to cyclists.
Drivers should look before they exit a parked car so as not to injure or impede the travel of a passing cyclist. This is illegal, can cause bicycle accidents and carries a fine of up to $100.
Drivers must have adequate room to pass a cyclist. They must also have enough space before returning back to the lane.
Related:
- Facts About Cycling in Massachusetts
- What to Know if You’ve Been Injured in a Bicycle Accident
- New Balance Hubway Program
- Bicyclists Can Protect Themselves By Buying Extra Car Insurance
- MassBike
Bicycle Accidents Can Be Prevented If Everybody Follows the Law
Bicyclists have returned to the road in large numbers as Boston enjoys an unseasonably warm March. It is an optimal time for drivers to make sure they understand a bicyclist’s rights in Massachusetts and remind themselves to be vigilant when sharing the roadway. And for bicyclists, it is a good time to review the rules of the road.
As drivers, we often watch out for other cars, but fail to do the same for pedestrians, motorcycles or bicyclists. In some bike accidents, drivers do not even see a bicyclist until just before the collision, and sometimes not at all. Other times, we may not understand the laws or are not focused on the road.
What drivers should know about a cyclist’s rights in Massachusetts:
- Bicyclists are allowed to travel on the same roads as drivers (unless the road is a limited access highway) and must follow the same laws.
- Cyclists should generally ride on the right side of the road, but may use the full lane or the left lane when turning to the left, and cyclist may travel two abreast in the lane. They should not impede traffic.
- Many communities, such as Boston, Cambridge and Somerville, offer bike lanes or Shared Lane Markings (also known as Sharrows). Bicyclists are encouraged, but not required to use them.
- When drivers are turning left, they must yield right of way to any bicyclist.
- Cyclists are allowed to pass traffic on the right. Left turning motorists should be particularly aware at intersections where cyclists passing traffic on the right may be hidden from view.
- It is against the law for individuals to open a car door and interfere with the travel of a bicyclist. Drivers and passengers should turn and check for bicycle traffic before opening doors.
- Divers can only pass a cyclist if there is sufficient room. It is illegal to cut bicyclists off after passing. The driver must wait until there is enough room to move back into the lane to avoid causing a bike accident.
Of course, bicyclists must also follow the rules of the road. There are some laws that apply to bicyclists only. For example:
- Cyclists are required to use hand signals to indicate their intention to turn, except when doing so may cause a bicycle accident (for example, when both hands are needed for braking).
- Cyclists have to stop at red lights and stop signs. They cannot ride the wrong way on one-way streets. Bicyclists should ride in the same direction as traffic in their lane.
- Bicycles should be equipped with reflectors and a warning device, such as a bell, and if ridden after dusk or before dawn, must be equipped with appropriate lighting.
- Bicycles cannot be ridden on the sidewalk in a business district. Towns may have additional ordinances about where bicycles can and cannot be ridden.
Drivers and cyclists who have more questions can access information about Massachusetts bicycling laws and safety from MassBike. The Boston-based advocacy organization supports the development of bike-friendly infrastructure throughout the state and offers cycling education and safety programs.
Related:
- Facts About Cycling in Massachusetts
- What Every Massachusetts Cyclist Should Know About Car Insurance
Elevator Accident in New York City Leads to Firings, Suspensions
A new report on a New York City elevator accident highlights the importance of safety on elevators, escalators and other equipment that transports the public.
While many elevators and escalators are used daily by large numbers of people, they pose a risk for injury when they are not properly maintained. The responsibility falls on manufacturers to produce safe products and building owners, management companies and city and state inspection officials to ensure machinery is kept up to code.
Elevator and escalator injuries and deaths are more common than the public may know. Each year, elevator accidents result in about 10,200 injuries and 27 deaths in the U.S. Escalator accidents result in about 17,000 injuries and 30 deaths.
One tragic case recently occurred in Massachusetts. In March 2011, a 4-year-old boy was killed after an escalator accident in the Sears at the Auburn Mall, near Worcester. The child was standing on the store’s second floor when he grabbed the moving down rail of the escalator and was pulled through a gap between the Plexiglas divider and the escalator. He fell 18 feet onto a display case.
Investigators later learned that the gap between the Plexiglas and the elevator was 1-1/4 inch greater than code. After an investigation, two state escalator inspectors were fired, six were suspended and 26 others were reprimanded.
In December 2011, two women lost their lives in separate elevator accidents. On December 9 in California, a 48-year-old woman was killed on an elevator accident at Cal State Long Beach. She was killed when the elevator got stuck between the second and third floors and someone tried to help her escape. A 2000-pound car crashed down on her.
Just five days later in New York City, a 41-year-old advertising executive was killed in an elevator accident in a Midtown Manhattan office tower. The woman was killed after she stepped into an elevator which suddenly lurched upward with the doors still open. She was pinned to an elevator shaft between the first and second floor and pronounced dead at the scene. Two other people who were trapped in the elevator were rescued and treated for trauma.
The city released results of the investigation into the woman’s death this week, finding that a maintenance crew had been repairing the elevator and utilized a special jump wire to bypass the elevator’s safety system nine minutes before the woman’s death. They then accidentally left it in place.
The investigation also found two other violations. First, the elevator repair crew never posted a warning that work was being performed. Second, the crew never called the city’s Buildings Department before putting the elevator back in service.
The city has suspended the license of the company from performing maintenance, Transel, which services 2,500 elevators in New York City. The company has fired five mechanics.
Related:
- Transel Elevator Fires 5 After Report on Elevator Death, The Associated Press.
- Escalator fall leads to firings, suspensions, Worcester Telegram.
Car Accident Deaths Rise Among Teens
After several years of decreases in U.S. teen driving deaths, new data shows the number climbed slightly in the first half of 2011.
Car accidents have long been the leading cause of death among U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three fatalities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But new preliminary data collected by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) shows an increase in teen driving deaths as the number of overall highway deaths is declining – as is the number of overall teen deaths. The data was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The data shows the number of 16-year-olds killed increased from 80 in the first half of 2010 to 93 in the first six months of 2011. The number of 17-year-olds killed rose from 110 to 118 during the same period.
The nation has not seen an increase in eight years. During that time, many states have passed graduated driving laws for teenagers with a goal of reducing car accident deaths. The Massachusetts Junior Operator Law states drivers under 18 cannot drive with another passenger under 18. The only exception is for for siblings. Teen drivers are also not allowed to drive between 12:30 a.m. and 5 a.m. In September 2010, the Safe Driver Law took effect, prohibiting drivers under 18 from using cell phones while driving.
In a Washington Post article published Feb. 17, Barbara Harsha, executive director of GHSA, called on Congress to provide financial incentives to states which have strengthened teen driving laws and for the NHTSA to work on efforts to reduce distracted driving among teens and increase seat belt use.
A Pew Research Center study showed 43 percent of teens have talked on a cell phone while driving and 48 percent have been in a car with an operator who was texting while driving.
Related:
Product Recall: More than 10,000 Fuji Bicycles Recalled
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall this week of more than 10,000 defective bicycles after reports the product’s frame was breaking.
Fuji Saratoga Women’s Bicycles recalled about 10,500 bicycles sold nationwide from November 2007 through December 2011. The bicycles were recalled after the company became aware of 12 reports of bicycle frames breaking. There were two injuries reported, including a head laceration requiring 20 stitches.
The product’s defect is its frame was breaking in the center of the downtube during use, causing bicyclists to lose control and fall. Bicyclists are instructed to stop riding and seek a replacement bike frame.
About the recalled Fuji women’s cruisers bicycles:
- 2008 to 2010 models of Saratoga 1.0, Saratoga 2.0, Saratoga 3.0 and Saratoga 4.0. The model type will be printed on the bike.
- The bikes come in various colors.
- The bikes will have the words “Fuji” and “Saratoga” alone or “Saratoga” printed on the frame.
- Serial numbers beginning with ICFJ7, ICFJ8, ICFJ9, ICFJ10 and ICFJ11. The serial number is located on the bottom of the frame near the crank.
The defective products were imported by Advanced Sports, Inc. of Philadelphia and manufactured in China. They were sold at specialty bike shops.
Customers are instructed to obtain a free replacement frame. They can contact Advanced Sports Inc. toll-free at 888-286-6263 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or visit www.fujibikes.com. They can also return the bike to any authorized Fuji Bicycle dealer for the free part.
Click here for more information on this recall.
In a smaller recall, the Mountain Bicycle Handlebar Stem has been recalled in the U.S. and Canada. Some 213 units were recalled in the U.S. and 83 in Canada by the importer, Shimano American Corp. of Irvine, Calif. The defective bicycles were sold at REI stores nationwide from October 2009 to November 2010 for about $120.
The bicycles were recalled because the bolt holding the front plate of the stem to the stem body can be pulled out of the threads while the bike is being ridden, causing the rider to fall. There has been one report of a rider falling and sustaining torso and arm injuries. Click here for more information on this recall.
The Boston product liability lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck have over 80 years combined experience handling complex cases involving serious personal injuries, wrongful death and defective products. We have obtained clients compensation in cases involving defective motor vehicles, recalled medical devices and dangerous pharmaceuticals.
If you have been injured, it is important to learn your rights and how long you may have to file a claim. For a free legal consultation, contact us today at 800-379-1244 or 617-723-7676 or use our contact form.
Massachusetts Social Host Ruling Limits Responsibility
Teenagers who host underage drinking parties but do not supply alcohol cannot be held liable in Massachusetts for injuries suffered by their guests, the state’s highest court has ruled. The ruling continues to limit liability to social hosts who either serve alcohol or exercise effective control over the supply of alcohol.
The Supreme Judicial Court also released parents or property owners from any liability if they did not know about the drinking or did not provide alcohol.
The case was brought by the family of Rachel Juliano and her parents against Christopher Dunbar and Peter Simpson, then later also his daughter Jessica Simpson. In 2007, Juliano, then 16, and Dunbar, then 19, went to a party at Jessica Simpson’s Wrentham home. The two had brought their own alcohol and consumed it at the gathering. Simpson, then 19, was home alone, and her father was away and unaware of the party.
After a few hours, Dunbar left in his car with Juliano and had a car accident, leaving her with brain damage. Prior to leaving the party, the two had been arguing. Jessica Simpson intervened and proposed she drive the two home.
In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said it was “asked to enlarge the scope of social host liability under our common law by extending a duty of care to an underage host who does not supply alcohol to underage guests, but provides a location where they are permitted to consume it. … [W]e decline to do so, and reaffirm that liability attaches only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol.”
There were two concurring opinions. Three of the justices agreed with the result, but did not agree with the reasoning of the majority in the case. This case has now been remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
Although the Supreme Judicial Court has the authority to define the common law, and to determine the extent of legal duty that one person has to another, the court declined to expand that duty in this case. The Court has been active in recent years. For example, in 2010, the Court changed the common law in snow and ice cases, abrogating the old Massachusetts law that recognized distinctions between natural and unnatural accumulations. Papadopoulos v. Target Corporation, SJC-10529 (July 26, 2010).
The Court also expanded the duty of limousine services which transport customers from party to party where heavy alcohol use is evident; the Court defined a duty to ensure that the drunken passenger had safe passage from the point of pick-up to drop-off at the end of the night. Commerce Insurance Co. v. Ultimate Livery Service, Inc., SJC-10149 (November 26, 2008).
Unfortunately, the Court’s opinion in the Juliano case means that the court will likely not re-examine other areas which are ripe for consideration, such as cases where adults knowingly permit underage drinking, and cases where bars knowingly serve large quantities of alcohol to patrons who by objective measure would be intoxicated, but who did not appear drunk. (For example, a patron may not show signs of intoxication after four or five mixed drinks, but would certainly exceed the state OUI limit of .08.)
Underage drinking and driving under the influence remain serious problems in Massachusetts. There is no pressure from the Supreme Judicial Court to treat these ills. Instead, the Court has left these problems for the legislature to address. Given the fact that the legislature has declined to take any needed action for many years, we can expect injuries and deaths caused by drunken driving to continue unabated.
Click here to read Juliano v. Simpson, (SJC-10843, February 21, 2012).
Click here to read about the Massachusetts social host liability law.
Read More
Recalled Coffee Makers Burn Nearly 40 People
More than 1.7 million coffee makers have been recalled after reports some machines have sprayed hot liquid, leaving 37 people with second-degree burns.
The Tassimo Single-Cup Brewers were recalled Feb. 9 by BSH Home Appliances Corp. of Irvine, California. Some 835,000 machines were recalled in the United States and 900,000 were recalled in Canada. The California manufacturer recalled the defective product voluntarily along with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada.
The brewers are defective because they can burst and spray hot liquid and coffee grounds or tea leaves onto consumers. There were a total of 140 reports of the brewers spraying hot liquid. Among the 37 second-degree burns was a 10-year-old Minnesota girl who suffered serious facial and neck burns which required her to be hospitalized.
The defective coffee makers carried the brand names of Bosch and Tassimo Professional Brewers. The Bosch brewers were sold in several colors to consumers between the dates of June 2008 and February 2012 for between $100 and $250. The Tassimo Professional was sold on in black, directly to hotels and food service providers. The brewers were manufactured in Slovenia and China.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled coffee makers immediately and contact the firm to order a free replacement T Disc holder part to fix the mechanism. This is the part of the machine that holds the single serve coffee cup.
Consumers can visit www.tassimodirect.com/safetyrecall for the full list of recalled models and to request a replacement part. They can also call the firm toll-free at 866-918-8763.
Click here to read the recall notice from the CPSC.
Read More
Good News for Massachusetts Consumers: SJC Affirms Damages Remedies in Insurance Bad Faith Case
Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important and strongly pro-consumer decision in the case of Rhodes v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 461 Mass. 486 (2012). The decision erased uncertainties created by an Appeals Court decision in the same case (78 Mass. App. Ct. 518 (2010). The decision sends the message that insurance companies will have to pay when they do not treat consumers fairly. Attorney David W. White has written an in-depth summary, which you can read by on our website.
In this case, the plaintiff’s car was hit from behind by an 18-wheel truck. The impact fractured her spinal cord and left her paraplegic. She also suffered broken ribs. She brought claims, along with her husband and her children.
The claims management company was AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. (AIGDC). The company delayed making a settlement offer, then finally made a very low one. Another offer came during trial, this one only slightly better.
The plaintiff rejected all offers and secured an $11.3 million judgement at a trial in Superior Court in September 2004.
Defendant appealed, and AIGDC failed to pay the judgment until after a c. 93A letter was sent and suit was instituted in a second action for violations of c. 93A and c. 176D.
Plaintiff prevailed, but appealed when they were not awarded full damages based upon the judgment.
The Appeals Court affirmed in part, but did not find the proper measure of damages should be based upon the judgement. The SJC granted further appellate review.
The SJC reversed. Affirming its earlier decisions in Hopkins v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 434 Mass. 556 (2001) and Bobick v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 349 Mass. 652 (2003), the court held that plaintiffs did not have to show how they would have answered a settlement offer, if it had come. Rather, the court stated, “[i]t has been and remains the rule that the plaintiffs need only prove that they suffered a loss, or an adverse consequence, due to the insurer’s failure to make a timely, reasonable offer; the plaintiffs need not speculate about what they would have done with a hypothetical offer that the insurers might have, but in fact did not, make on a timely basis.”
The court also affirmed the trial court’s findings that the underlying insurer, Zurich, was not liable for violations of c. 93A.
The court held that the underlying judgment of $11.3 million should be the basis of the c. 93A judgment, and that it should be doubled.
Read more about this decision on our website.
About Attorney David W. White and Breakstone, White & Gluck
Breakstone, White & Gluck is a Boston personal injury firm which represents clients who have been injured in car accidents, truck accidents and other accidents. We have decades of experience handling c. 93A claims including insurance bad faith claims in Massachusetts. We look forward to the opportunity to assist referring counsel and clients with their 93A and c. 176D claims.
Attorney David W. White is a partner at the firm and is a past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association. He writes on cases involving c. 93A and c. 176D and is recognized on an expert in Massachusetts insurance laws. He frequently lectures on the insurance matters for Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education. Attorney White is a past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
Massachusetts Car Accident Insurance: What Coverage Do You Need?
Buying car insurance in Massachusetts can seem complicated, with various types of coverages and state laws which have changed in recent years. The state requires all drivers to carry some level of insurance, but in 2008, drivers gained new buying options as Massachusetts moved away from a highly regulated industry to managed competition. At the same time, insurers have started changing their policies, so not all companies use the standard Massachusetts policy.
In the past, the state had set rates. But under “managed competition,” each insurance company can set its own price and compete for consumers’ business.
If you are a Massachusetts driver, you should shop around to obtain the best rates while still buying adequate insurance to protect yourself in a car accident. Here, the Boston car accident lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck offer some tips on what to consider before purchasing auto insurance for you and your family:
Compulsory Coverage
Massachusetts requires drivers to buy basic car insurance coverage, including:
- Bodily Injury to Others: $20,000 per person, $40,000 per accident
- Personal Injury Protection: $8,000 for medical bills and lost wages
- Bodily Injury from an Uninsured Driver: $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident
- Damage to Another Person’s Property: $5,000
Optional Coverage
The compulsory coverage provides insufficient protection for car accidents. These other insurances offer additional protection.
- Bodily Injury: You can buy up to $500,000 per person per accident. If you cause a serious motor vehicle accident, this protects you from claims against your personal property.
- Underinsured Auto: You could be injured by another driver who does not have car insurance. You can protect yourself by purchasing up to $500,000 in coverage per person per car accident.
- Medical Payments: This coverage pays for medical expenses that exceed your $8,000 PIP coverage. You can obtain an extra $10,000 in coverage for a small cost.
- Collision Comprehensive. This coverage pays for damages to your vehicle in a car accident. This coverage is paid by the policy of the driver found to be at fault. Many people choose a high deductible to save money on their policy price, but this can cost you far more if you caused a car accident and have to pay a deductible for your own vehicle.
Click here for information on auto discounts and how to get additional insurance coverage through your homeowners’ insurance policy.
Related Blogs, Articles and Websites
Multaq Heart Drug Warning from FDA
After years of close monitoring and label changes for Multaq, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a new warning that the heart drug places some patients at an increased risk for serious cardiac events including death.
Multaq is used to treat various conditions, including patients with permanent Atrial Fibrillation (permanent AF). This is the most serious form of AF, which is an abnormal heart rhythm. The two other types are paroxysmal AF and persistent AF.
Permanent AF is a chronic condition in which sinus rhythm cannot be sustained despite treatment.
The FDA issued its Dec. 19, 2011 safety notification based on its monitoring of a 10-year study. In the communication, the FDA stated Multaq doubles the rate of cardiovascular death, stroke and heart failure in patients with permanent AF. The FDA advised healthcare professionals to:
- Not prescribe Mutlaq to patients with AF who cannot or will not be converted into normal sinus rhythm (permanent AF).
- Monitor heart rhythm by electrocardiogram at least once every three months.
- If the patient is in permanent AF, Multaq should be stopped or the patient should be cardioverted.
- Multaq is indicated to reduce hospitalization for AF in patients in sinus rhythm with a history of non-permanent AF.
- Patients prescribed Multaq should receive antithrombatic therapy.
The study the FDA acted on was called called the Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Outcome Study Using Dronedarone on Top of Standard Therapy (PALLAS). The study was stopped early in July 2011. The FDA said it will release more information as it becomes available.
Multaq Background
Dronedarone is the generic name for Multaq. It was approved by the FDA in 2009 to treat several conditions, including permanent AF. Manufactured by Sanof-Aventis, the drug has been prescribed to 500,000 people around the world.
Since 2009, Multaq has been subject to several FDA actions, including in 2010 a revised warning noting cases of worsening heart failure in some patients. In February 2011, the FDA changed the warning label to state that Multaq should be discontinued if liver damage is suspected.
Related Blogs and Websites
- Actos: FDA Warning About Bladder Cancer
- DePuy Hip Recall: Insurers Seek to Collect Settlements
- Transvaginal Mesh: What to Know If You’ve Been Injured