Historical Facts

According to reports, the plaintiff was injured while on vacation in Greece with her husband when the boat she was riding in was struck by a boat owned by the defendant, necessitating significant treatment in Greece and the United States. The Greek Port Authority undertook an inquiry after the disaster, which included acquiring thirteen witness accounts. The plaintiff then filed a personal injury action in Massachusetts district court against the defendant, who was a Massachusetts resident. On the grounds of forum non conveniens, the defendant filed a request to dismiss.

Dismissing a Case Due to Inconvenient Forum

The law stipulates that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should be respected only in exceptional circumstances. As a result, a defendant asserting forum non conveniens must show that a sufficient alternative forum exists and that judicial efficiency and convenience weigh heavily in favor of litigating the issue in a different forum. An adequate alternative forum exists, according to the court, if the defendant can show that the other forum meets the plaintiff’s claims and that the defendant is willing to be served in that forum.

Although the parties in the subject matter did not dispute that Greek courts dealt with concerns similar to those stated in the subject case, the plaintiff maintained that Greece was an insufficient forum. However, the court concluded that a forum is only insufficient if it is fundamentally unjust. The plaintiff stated that in Greece, her damages would be limited. While the court acknowledged this, the cap nevertheless allowed for a significant recovery. As a result, the Greek courts did not provide a possibly unjust remedy, according to the court. Furthermore, the court determined that the fact that the plaintiff’s claims would not be heard by a jury was insufficient evidence that her claims could not be adjudicated properly. Furthermore, the court determined that both private and public interest factors supported the case being heard in Greece. As a result, the defendant’s request to dismiss was granted.

Consult with a Skilled Cape Cod Personal Injury Lawyer

If you were injured in an accident caused by someone else, you may be entitled to compensation and should see an attorney about your options. The skilled personal injury lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, are adept at proving liability in personal injury matters, and if we represent you, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us via our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

Because of special situations like this, it is very important to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible after an injury caused by another’s neglect, recklessness, or carelessness. An attorney who focuses his or her practice on these types of cases can help you avoid procedural pitfalls that could end your case before you have your day in court.

Facts of the Case

in a recent (unreported) case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against two defendants, a maritime academy and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, attempting to assert certain claims sounding in tort and contract. According to the plaintiff, she was injured when she fell during a boat ride on the academy’s premises on September 24, 2016. The plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter of presentation to the defendant academy on or about March 10, 2017, purportedly advising the defendant academy of the plaintiff’s claims. The letter was, in turn, forwarded to the defendant academy’s insurance company. After more information was requested, a second, more-detailed letter and settlement demand was sent to the defendant academy’s counsel by the plaintiff’s attorney on August 23, 2017.

The case did not settle, and the plaintiff filed a formal complaint in court. The defendant academy filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint due to her failure to comply with the presentment requirements of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 258, § 4. The trial court granted the defendant academy’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s first letter did not contain sufficient detail to constitute a proper presentment; her second letter, while more detailed, did not cure the defects in the first letter because it was not sent to the defendant academy’s president; and the plaintiff could not escape the presentment requirement by “recasting her tort claim as a contract claim.”

Decision in the Case

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, a civil action could not be instituted against a public employer on a claim for damages unless the claimant first presented his or claim in writing to the executive officer of such public employer within two years after the date of the accident for which he or she sought compensation. To comply with the requirements of the Act, the plaintiff’s presentment of his or her claim had to set forth sufficient facts upon which public officials could reasonably discern whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery. Here, the plaintiff’s first letter was deficient in setting forth the requisite details, and her second letter was addressed to an attorney, not to the public official to whom notice should have been given. As to the plaintiff’s attempt at a breach of contract claim, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that dismissal for defective presentment was the correct course of action.

Speak to Counsel About a Negligence Case in Cape Cod

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III can help if you have been injured in a Cape Cod slip and fall accident. Call us at 888-262-6664 to speak to someone about setting up a free consultation. There is no legal fee until we settle your case or win a judgment in your favor in a court of law, so please call sooner rather than later. A delay in getting the advice and counsel that you need could result in forfeiture of your right to seek monetary damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other losses caused by another’s negligence.

However, some situations lend themselves to the possibility of jurisdiction in more than one court – a state court or a federal court, perhaps. Sometimes, two states may arguably both have jurisdiction over a given case.

Rarely – but sometimes – two different nations may have jurisdiction of a particular lawsuit. In such a situation, it is up to the court system to decide which nation’s court will provide the more convenient forum based on the situation at hand.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who filed suit against the defendant boat owner in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking financial compensation for injuries that they allegedly sustained when the defendant’s vessel, which was being piloted at the time by the defendant’s gardener, collided with the plaintiffs’ boat. Although all of the parties were American citizens (the plaintiffs were from New York, and the defendant was from Massachusetts), the accident in question took place in Greece.

In response to the plaintiffs’ suit asserting claims for personal injury by negligence under general maritime law, loss of consortium, and property damage, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case on the ground of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for discovery.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

The federal district court granted the defendant’s motion for a forum non conveniens dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action, conditioned upon the defendant’s submission to the jurisdiction of the Greek court system, the defendant’s waiver of any statute of limitations defense (and the Greek courts’ acceptance of such waiver), and the defendant’s agreement to satisfy any judgment that might be rendered against him by the courts of Greece. The plaintiffs’ cross motion for discovery was, accordingly, denied.

Although the court began its analysis with the presumption that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, the court ultimately concluded that the defendant had borne his burden of showing both that an adequate alternative forum existed and that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favored litigating the claim in the alternative forum. In so holding, the court considered both private and public interest factors, including access to sources of proof, securing witnesses, the possibility of viewing the premises, docket congestion, and ease of access to proceedings. The fact that most of the key fact witnesses resided in Greece and only a Greek court had the power to compel the witnesses weighed heavily in favor of the matter being determined in Greece, according to the court.

Injury Attorney Reviewing New Cases in Cape Cod

Statistically speaking, one is much more likely to be involved in a car or truck accident than a boating accident. However, accidents can and do happen on the water, especially when boaters behave negligently or recklessly. If you’ve been hurt in a Cape Cod boating accident and need legal advice about your case, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664 and ask for an appointment to come in and discuss your case. We handle cases in Hyannis, Plymouth, and other areas of Cape Cod.

To be on the safe side, take a few minutes to peruse these government websites for the latest information before embarking on your particular variety of summer fun.

Boater Beware: Safety Recalls from the U.S. Coast Guard

With 200 miles of coastland and 3,000 lakes, the Bay State can be a wonderland for swimmers, skiers, and boaters. Before heading out on the water, however, it would be prudent to visit the U.S. Coast Guard website to check the latest list of marine product recalls. A viewer can search for a particular craft by company, model, or year. There is also a form on the Coast Guard’s website to report possible safety defects on boats and related equipment less than 10 years old.

There are currently some 1,352 recall records on the site, including such potential safety issues such as ventilation, capacity, mounting bolts, electric systems, and fuel systems. If your boat is on the list, contact the manufacturer for further information and, of course, arrange for repairs before taking to the water.

Before You Shop for the Family Picnic

The United States Food and Drug administration keeps track of recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts for the nation’s food, drugs, animal health, biologics, medical devices, and cosmetic products. The current list of possibly dangerous food products includes sliced mushrooms with possible listeria monocytogenes, raw macadamia nuts that may be contaminated with salmonella, and powdered donuts that may have mold.

In addition to contamination with life-threatening illnesses, several foods with undeclared allergens such as peanuts or soy are also on the list. If you or a family member has a life-threatening allergy, it pays to keep abreast of the latest alerts.

Road Trip? Not without Checking for Vehicle Recalls

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the latest information about car, truck, and SUV recalls. Before heading out on a vacation or other family trip, a quick look at the NHTSA’s website will alert consumers to safety issues such as a roof rack that could suddenly detach, a motorhome sliding door that may not open, and airbags that may malfunction.

The airbag issue affects some five million Honda vehicles manufactured between 2001 and 2011, including certain Accords, Civics, CR-Vs, Elements, Odysseys, Pilots, Ridgeline, and Acuras. According to the recall notice, an inflator could rupture, causing metal fragments to strike the driver or other occupants, resulting in serious injuries or even death.

To Talk to a Massachusetts Accident Lawyer about a Defective Product

If your family is injured because of an accident caused by a dangerous or defective product, call the Law Office of John C. Manoog, III at 888-262-6664 and ask for an appointment. We offer a free initial consultation of potential products liability lawsuits, but remember that strict filing deadlines apply and a delay in asserting your legal rights can result in no recovery, regardless of the severity of your injuries. With offices in Hyannis and Plymouth, we offer legal assistance throughout the Cape Cod area.

Related Blog Posts New Bills Hope To Strengthen Laws Against Drunken Boat Operators Is Nothing Safe? Ford Recalls Limos, Police Vehicles, Ambulances, and Even Hearses in Massachusetts, Nationwide

The two bills, H1658 and H1659, aim to apply the same results for operating a motor vehicle under the influence (OUI) as for operating a motor boat under the influence (BUI). Currently, Massachusetts has two separate statutes for a BUI and an OUI. Supporters of the new bills hope they will fix some perceived weaknesses of the laws. For example, a BUI is not listed on a motor vehicle record, and without pulling a criminal history it is hard to determine whether an individual has a BUI. Furthermore, there is no way to prevent an individual with multiple OUIs or BUIs from registering or operating a boat. In Massachusetts, a boat operator does not need a license to operate a boat, but they are required to register their vessels. There is nothing preventing someone with several BUI or OUI charges from purchasing and registering any number of boats.

This problem has been highlighted in some high-profile BUI cases. For instance, during a 2009 Independence Day celebration, an intoxicated Cape Cod man steered his boat into a secured fireworks area. Authorities were able to stop the operator and charge him with a BUI. It surfaced in the press that the operator already had five convictions for drunk driving and seven more for operating a boat intoxicated. Astonishingly, he had been able to purchase and register the same boat he steered into the fireworks area. Massachusetts was able to prevent him from operating a car intoxicated as he had previously lost his driver’s license for life; however, there was nothing to prevent him from registering and driving his boat.

This incident and the concern of locals helped encourage the proposed legislation. According to the Boat U.S. Foundation, the use of alcohol or drugs is involved in about half of all recreational boating accidents. Nationally, alcohol use is the leading factor in fatal boating accidents. In Massachusetts, 10 out of the 68 boating accidents were caused by alcohol, and 5 out of 16 deaths were caused by alcohol, as reported by the U.S. Coast Guard’s Boating Safety Division.

Some boat operators fail to follow safety procedures, abide by boating laws, or appreciate the dangers involved. Furthermore, not all laws are sufficiently strict. When people consume alcohol, their judgment becomes impaired, and they often take risks that can lead to accidents and injuries. Alcohol consumption can also affect an operator’s vision, coordination, and balance. Any type of boating accident can cause devastating injuries. When operators and passengers embark on their sea vessels, they shouldn’t have to worry about the intoxication of other operators. If you had a boating accident caused by another boat operator’s intoxication or negligence, and the accident resulted in injury to yourself or someone else, you may be able to recover money for your damages.

Local attorney, John C. Manoog III, has extensive experience handling boating accident cases for injured victims in Cape Cod. For a free initial consultation, call the office at 888-262-6664 or reach us by email. There is always someone available to talk to you about your case.

Related Blog Posts: National Transportation Safety Board Urges States to Reduce Allowable Blood-Alcohol Limit Fatal accident claims life of Massachusetts teen; DUI blamed State Police Crack Down on DUI – Announce Sobriety Checkpoints for Plymouth County