Posts Tagged ‘Massachusetts’
Massachusetts Court: Youth Soccer Association Not Liable for Player Injury
When your kids take to the field for a game of soccer, you expect the field and the equipment to be safe, and if not, then you should expect to be able to bring claims on behalf of your injured child. But in Massachusetts, personal injury caused by a falling soccer goal on a field maintained by a youth soccer association does not result in any liability at all.
The facts are straightforward: The plaintiff was 12 years old, playing in a program run by Sudbury Youth Soccer Association, Inc. on a field owned by the association. The goal posts were not properly anchored, and there was no warning that the posts could tip over. The goal did tip over, causing serious injury to the plaintiff. Claims were brought on his behalf.
The soccer association denied liability, claiming the immunity that is provided by Massachusetts General Laws c. 231, Sec. 85V. That statute protects nonprofit sports programs from liability caused by neglience in the conduct of the programs. Liability is limited under the statute to injuries arising from the failure to maintian the real estate. The soccer goals were found by the court to not be part of the real estate owned by the association.
The statute governing the case is just one of many protections in place for volunteer, non-profit associations, and others. Some may argue that programs would be limited if liability were not lmited. The unfortunate victims are often innocent children who have suffered serious injuries.
The case is Welch v. Sudbury Youth Soccer Association, Inc., 453 Mass. 352 (2009).
Defective Refrigerator Recall Affects Massachusetts Consumers; Threat of Fire and Serious Injury or Death
On March 10, 2009, 1.6 million Maytag refrigerator units (also sold under other brand names) were voluntarily recalled due to several reported fire hazard incidents. Due to an electrical failure in the relay, the component that turns on the refrigerator’s compressor, units can become 
overheated and pose a serious fire and injury hazard.
Before initiating the recall, Maytag had reports of 41 related relay malfunctions. Sixteen of those reports included information about property damage, ranging from smoke to serious kitchen fires. Though there have been no reports of personal injury or wrongful death, the serious repercussions of this defect place many Massachusetts consumers in harm’s way.
The refrigerators in this recall were sold between January 2001 and January 2004; some were sold in Massachusetts. A number of refrigerator brands are included in this recall: Maytag, Jenn-Air, Amana, Admiral, Magic Chef, Performa by Maytag, and Crosley.
Read More
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Marks Victory for Massachusetts Consumers; Affirms Accountability for Drug Companies
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine on March 4, 2009, represents a resounding triumph for all Americans who take prescription drugs. In short, the Court found by a 6-3 margin that the federal regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) do not prevent a consumer from bringing a state court product liability claim against a pharmaceutical company that negligently manufactures, distributes or labels a prescription drug. The case preserves the rights of Massachusetts consumers to obtain compensation for personal injuries resulting from defective drug products.
Details of the Case
Diane Levine brought suit against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals after being forced to amputate her right forearm nearly nine years ago. A professional musician, Deborah had suffered from persistent migraine headaches and visited a local clinic for treatment. She was prescribed Phenergan, an antihistamine used to treat nausea. A physician assistant administered the drug by “IV-push,” which caused the drug to come into contact with arterial blood. As a result, she developed gangrene, leaving her no choice but to amputate half of her right arm.
Levine sued Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, claiming that Wyeth failed to adequately warn medical professionals and consumers of the risks of IV administration. At trial, evidence indicated that since the approval of the drug in 1955, more than 20 other patients had suffered from similar amputations. A Vermont jury concluded that Phenergan was a defective product, and awarded Levine $6.7 million to compensate for her devastating injury.
Wyeth appealed the verdict, and argued that because the drug’s label had been approved by the FDA – a federal agency – a consumer such as Deborah could not sue the company in state court. The Supreme Court rejected Wyeth’s argument, and ruled that a drug manufacturer ultimately “bears responsibility for the content of its label at all times.” The FDA’s purpose is to regulate, not to compensate consumers for injuries caused by drugs. “State law remedies further consumer protection,” Justice Stevens wrote, “by motivating manufacturers to produce safe and effective drugs and to give adequate warnings.”
What does this mean for Massachusetts consumers?
The Wyeth decision will make it much harder for drug manufacturers to hide behind a shield of compliance with federal regulations. FDA approval will not provide immunity for a drug company with a defective product. If you are injured by a negligently produced prescription drug, your right to bring a product liability action in state court against the drug company is preserved, and drug companies cannot hide behind a wall of federal preemption.
Another important effect of the decision is that pharmaceutical companies will likely pay closer attention to their labels and instructions, therefore improving consumer protection and safety in the prescription drug marketplace.
More Information
To read the entire decision, click here: Wyeth v. Levine
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.
Contractors Cited in Fatal Quincy, Massachusetts Shipyard Crane Accident
A crane collapse in August 2008, which occurred in Quincy, Massachusetts, caused one wrongful death and three other people injured. After an extensive investigation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), issued citations to three of the companies involved in the crane
dismantling process. With today’s pressure to underbid competition, many people are wondering if those cost savings mean a compromise of safety on the job site.
At the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, MA, a giant crane needed dismantling. As is customary, specialty contactors were brought in for the task. Norsar LLC was hired to oversee the process and they subcontracted Sarens to operate the jacking system necessary for the dismantling process. OSHA issued citations for serious violations to both of these companies.
The problem, OSHA representatives say, is that the companies deviated from their original plan and then did not adequately work out the new plan, placing many employees in danger. Originally, the companies planned to dismantle the crane’s 160-foot leg units in two 80-foot parts. Instead, they opted to work with the full 160-foot units, exposing employees to crushing-by and struck-by hazards. Additionally, they failed to minimize employee presence in the danger zone.
Massachusetts Judges Moving Towards Expanded Voir Dire
Good news for trial advocates and their clients: Massachusetts courts are continuing to expand voir dire of prospective jurors. But Massachusetts state courts still lag behind courts in other states when it comes to screening citizens for possible selection on juries in our civil and criminal trials. The vast majority of states outside of the commonwealth permit a process whereby the judge and the attorneys inquire of potential jurors regarding their attitudes and beliefs on issues involved in the case. This process, called voir dire, is an important tool for identifying individuals who may have strong feelings or biases which would prevent them from fairly deciding the issues in the case.
Until recently, most judges in the Massachusetts state courts would simply ask a series of vague and basic questions to the entire prospective jury panel, which, in essence, asks the individuals to evaluate whether or not they can be fair and follow the court’s instructions. The system had one advantage: it was fairly quick. But the basic statutory questions are notorious for failing to eliminate potentially biased jurors.
States such as Rhode Island and New York permit extensive questioning by attorneys in the case directly with the prospective jurors. Voir dire in those states allows the attorneys on both sides to ensure that jurors with potential bias are not seated in the case.
In the last five years, the majority of judges in Massachusetts have begun a modified approach called “individual voir dire.” These judges bring each prospective juror to the side bar where the judge questions them about their beliefs and attitudes related to the issues in the case. Some of these judges allow attorneys to ask questions in follow up. Others allow attorneys to conduct the entire voir dire process. Most judges have found that this process is as efficient and expeditious as the old standard questions approach. In those cases where the process takes a little longer, there is the benefit of having a better jury for the case.
Under the new approach, judges are asking open-ended questions designed to encourage prospective jurors to express their feelings and beliefs. The basic premise of voir dire is that not every citizen is right for every case. For example, the parent of three young girls might not be an appropriate juror for a criminal case involving sexual assault on a minor. Similarly, an individual who feels there are too many frivolous lawsuits, might not be appropriate for a significant personal injury trial.
Read More
Boston Magazine Recognizes Breakstone, White & Gluck as Super Lawyers for 2008 in Massachusetts and New England
All four attorneys in the Boston personal injury firm of Breakstone, White & Gluck were again recognized in the annual Best of Boston Magazine’s Massachusetts Super Lawyer edition. We are pleased to share the news that Marc Breakstone, Ronald Gluck and David White were all recognized as Super Lawyers in various personal injury fields, and Heather Engman was recognized as a Rising Star. Recognition was also given in the New England edition.
The recognitions from Boston Magazine are not the first for our firm. All of the attorneys have achieved Super Lawyer or Rising Star recognitions in the past, and the firm has garnered other awards and recognition. Please visit our website, and our personal injury lawyers pages, for more information about our Boston personal injury law firm.
Read the full story on the Firm News page of our personal injury web site.