The Facts of the Case

It is reported that while he was at work, the plaintiff slipped and fell in the parking lot. He filed a workers’ compensation claim and was subsequently awarded benefits. He also filed a personal injury lawsuit in which he asserted negligence claims against the defendant, the party responsible for clearing the subject lot of snow and ice. The parties exchanged discovery, which included the plaintiff providing the defendant with documentation of his workers’ compensation claim. Before trial, the plaintiff filed motions in limine asking the court to preclude evidence of his workers’ compensation claim from use at trial.

Evidence of Workers’ Compensation Claims in Personal Injury Matters

First, the court examined the plaintiff’s motion in limine with regard to his current workers’ compensation benefits on the ground that it could detrimentally impact his recovery of damages. The defendant did not object to the plaintiff’s motion; as such, it was granted as unopposed. The plaintiff also filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit the defendant from introducing evidence of other injuries or his prior workers’ compensation claims, arguing that they were not relevant and would be overly prejudicial.

Further, the plaintiff noted that the defendant had not identified any expert who could analyze the extent to which his prior injuries impacted his current health. The defendant agreed as to the workers’ compensation records but argued that evidence of prior injuries may be relevant to the subject case, as it could provide an explanation for the plaintiff’s current symptoms. The court ultimately agreed with the defendant, and denied the second motion with respect to evidence of other injuries but granted it with regard to the workers’ compensation claim.

Meet with an Experienced Cape Cod Attorney

People who recklessly cause others to suffer harm should be held accountable, but in some cases, they will attempt to avoid liability by showing the injured party received compensation from another source. If you were hurt by another party’s careless behavior you should meet with a lawyer to discuss your rights. The experienced personal injury lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, are adept at proving negligence, and if we represent you we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us through our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant fast food establishment for lunch. She placed her order, received it, and sat down. She then got back up and, while using a cane, walked to the condiment counter. On the way there, she encountered a pool of an unknown substance on the floor, which caused her to lose her footing and fall. She couldn’t tell what kind of liquid it was or how long it had been on the floor but reported that it soaked through her clothes.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against the owner of the restaurant, saying that it was negligent in failing to keep the property safe. The restaurant owner moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not prove it breached any duty owed to the plaintiff. The court denied the motion. How to Establish Liability in a Slip and Fall Accident

The plaintiff maintained that there were enough issues of fact that needed to be determined by a jury to prevent summary judgment, regardless of whether the court assessed liability under the traditional or mode of operation approach. The court agreed. The court elaborated that, pursuant to the traditional approach, if a customer falls and is injured as a result of a foreign substance on the floor, the injured party can show that the business owner was negligent by demonstrating that the dangerous substance was caused by the business or that the business had actual knowledge of the substance’s presence. The injured party may be able to establish constructive notice by showing that a substance existed for such a long time that that the business owner should have been aware of it.

An injured party can prove culpability under the mode of operation method by demonstrating that an owner’s chosen mode of operation makes it relatively predictable that a harmful condition will develop. As a result, if a business owner fails to take reasonable care to safeguard individuals from the condition, he or she may be deemed negligent. In the instance at hand, the court determined that the defendant failed to show that summary judgment was required under either approach and dismissed the request.

Consult a Trusted Massachusetts Attorney Regarding Your Potential Claims

Slip and fall accidents can cause significant trauma, and when such accidents occur at fast food establishments, the owner of the establishment may be deemed accountable. If you were hurt in a fall, the trusted lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the full amount of compensation recoverable. You can contact us via our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

The Plaintiff’s Accident

The complainant is said to have fallen while visiting the post office on a rainy day. She was injured and filed a premises liability claim against the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act as a result (the Act). After discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court refused the defendant’s motion after considering the facts.

Developing Evidence for Premises Liability Claims

The federal government is liable in tort to the same extent and in the same manner as a private individual in similar circumstances under the Act. Because the plaintiff’s accident happened in Massachusetts, she needed to show that the defendant was negligent under Massachusetts law.

The court clarified that negligence is defined as failing to use the same level of care that a reasonable person would in a similar scenario. As a result, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to behave with reasonable care, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the breach. The plaintiff must also establish a causal link between the injury and the breach of the owed obligation.

Invitees are particularly owed a duty to exert reasonable care to avoid harm caused by third-party conduct by business owners. This involves the responsibility to keep a property reasonably safe in light of all relevant factors, such as the danger of harm, the severity of potential injuries, and the cost of avoiding the risks.

A plaintiff must show that the business knew or should have known about the harmful condition and that the plaintiff was unlikely to be able to protect herself from the harm in order to hold the business accountable. In the instance at hand, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence showing, at the very least, there was a disagreement as to whether the defendant had breached the plaintiff’s duties. As a result, the motion of the defendant was denied.

Speak with an Attorney in Massachusetts

Business owners have a responsibility to protect clients from injury caused by unsafe circumstances on their premises, and they can be held accountable if they fail to do so. If you were injured in a slip and fall accident, the skilled attorneys of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your rights and assist you in pursuing the maximum amount of damages available under the law. You can reach us through our form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The Plaintiff’s Fall

Reportedly, the plaintiff attended a burial at a cemetery owned by the defendant municipality. After the ceremony concluded, he walked from the gravesite towards his car. He did not walk on a path but over other graves. At one point, he stepped on what he referred to as a soft spot, which created a deep hole. His left foot and ankle got caught in the hole, and he suffered significant injuries.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting its negligence caused his fall. Prior to trial, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it had not breached any duty owed to the plaintiff. After reviewing the evidence of the case, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Establishing Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Cases

In Massachusetts, landowners are generally liable to invitees who suffer harm due to conditions on their property, but only if they know or by exercising reasonable care would have discovered the conditions and should realize that they involve an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and should anticipate that invitees will not make a discovery or recognize the danger, but fail to take reasonable measures to protect the invitees against harm.

Thus, whether a landowner will be held accountable for harm suffered by an invitee typically turns on whether the landowner possesses actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition that caused the harm. In the subject case, the evidence indisputably showed that the sinkhole that caused the plaintiff to fall was not known or visible, and therefore, was not a condition of which the defendant’s employees were or should have been aware. Thus, as the plaintiff could not establish the basic elements of negligence, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Speak to a Seasoned Cape Cod Attorney

People often trip due to holes, uneven ground, and other dangerous obstacles, and the parties responsible for maintaining the properties where falls occur can often be held accountable. If you were hurt in a trip and fall accident, you should meet with a lawyer regarding what evidence you must produce to recover damages. The seasoned Cape Cod premises liability attorneys of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III can advise you of your rights and aid you in seeking the full amount of compensation available. You can reach us via the form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff, who is a Massachusetts resident, was a guest at the defendant resort when she slipped and fell in the area near the hot tub. She suffered serious injuries in the fall and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the Massachusetts District court, asserting negligence claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the plaintiff argued she was entitled to jurisdictional discovery prior to her claims being dismissed. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff and denied the defendant’s motion. Jurisdiction Over Out of State Defendants

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to compel a party to abide by its orders. In cases involving diversity of citizenship, a court must determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant complies with both the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the state’s long-arm statute.

Further, it is well-established that Massachusetts’ long-arm statute imposes requirements that are not coextensive with the Due Process Clause. Thus, a party must show that the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with both state and federal requirements. The state long-arm statute states that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, which includes a business or entity who, either directly or through an agent, engaged in business transactions within the commonwealth if the cause of action against the person arises from such transactions.

The long-arm statute is construed broadly in favor of personal jurisdiction. The court further explained that “arising from” has been interpreted to mean that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions. In the subject case, the court found that the plaintiff adequately alleged facts that would allow it to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion, and allowed the plaintiff to conduct discovery to determine if specific personal jurisdiction was proper.

Meet with a Capable Cape Cod Attorney

Slip and fall accidents can cause serious injuries, and in many instances, they arise out of a property owner’s negligent failure to maintain their premises in a safe condition. If you were hurt in a slip and fall accident, you should meet with an attorney to discuss your rights. The capable Cape Cod premises liability attorneys of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III can assess the circumstances surrounding your harm and advise you of your potential claims. You can contact us via the form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

Of course, not every piece of evidence is as reliable as it might first appear. There is technology available that can alter the appearance of both photographs and videos, a fact to which anyone who has skimmed through a fashion magazine can attest.

The case described below dealt with a situation in which the image shown in the photograph was real; it accurately reflected the scene at the time it was taken. However, there may have been a discrepancy regarding when the party offering the photographs into evidence said the picture was taken and when it was actually taken.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent (unreported) case was a woman who was hurt after she allegedly slipped and fell on black ice as she was attempting to get control of her dog in the parking lot of a veterinarian’s office. She sued the defendants, the veterinary clinic and the family realty trust that owned the property, alleging that their negligence contributed to her injuries. Prior to trial, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to continue the trial because a “new so-called rebuttal expert” could not be present on the scheduled trial date. The expert in question was to be called to testify regarding certain discrepancies in the metadata field (particularly the date and time) of photographs that the defendants claimed represented the accident scene.

The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the case was tried to a jury. The jury determined that the clinic was not negligent and that, although the trust was negligent, its negligence was not a substantial contributing factor to the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff sought appellate review.

Resolution on Appeal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s entry of judgment upon the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants. Although the plaintiff argued on appeal that the lower tribunal had erred in denying her motion for a continuance and in excluding evidence from her proposed expert (which she maintained would have shown spoliation), the reviewing court found no cause to disturb the ruling. In so holding, the appellate court pointed out that the plaintiff’s motion to continue did not claim spoliation, fraud on the court, or perjury, all of which she relied upon in seeking a reversal of the defense verdict.

Furthermore, the plaintiff did not object to the admission of the photographs about which her expert would have testified had there been a continuance, and she was the first party to affirmatively use the photos at trial. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was found to have waived the arguments that she attempted to advance at trial.

To Speak to an Injury Lawyer in Cape Cod

A slip and fall accident in a parking lot or elsewhere can result in permanent disability, extensive medical costs, and a great amount of pain and suffering to the affected individual. If you have questions about getting started on a premises liability lawsuit to hold the responsible party liable in such a situation, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. If you have any photographs of the accident scene or information about possible witnesses, please have this potential evidence available when you meet with an attorney about your case.

In the absence of adequate liability insurance, the plaintiff’s options for recovering a judgment against the defendant are limited. While the plaintiff may have a right to execute the judgment against any property owned by the defendant and/or any wages that he or she earns in the future, it may take a very, very long time to satisfy a judgment – if it is ever satisfied.

Of course these issues are meaningless if the plaintiff is unable to prove his or her case in court, so it is important that someone who has suffered personal injuries due to another person’s careless or reckless conduct consult an attorney who can help him or her build a case that will convince the jury of his or her right to money damages. Without evidence that preponderates in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant’s liability insurance is irrelevant.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who alleged that he was injured when he and the defendant had a disagreement in a public place. According to the plaintiff, the defendant shoved him, causing him to fall and permanently injury his arm. According to the defendant’s version of the altercation, the accident happened because the plaintiff raised his phone in front of the defendant’s face, causing him to instinctively push the device away, which in turn caused the plaintiff to stumble and fall.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, asserting claims for negligence, reckless indifference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery. The defendant’s homeowners insurance company defended the claim under a reservation of rights, citing a coverage exclusion for intentional acts. The plaintiff and defendant settled their case, with the defendant agreeing to pay the plaintiff $750,000, $500,000 of which the defendant believed his insurance company would pay. The insurance company refused to pay this amount and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify the defendant for the funds that he had paid out to the plaintiff in regard to his personal injury claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company.

Decision of the Reviewing Tribunal

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed and remanded, holding that, while the term “physical abuse,” as used in the defendant’s homeowners insurance policy, was ambiguous, a reasonable insured could have interpreted the term as providing coverage for the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the defendant. Thus, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the insurance company as to its duty to indemnify the defendant was held to be in error.

As to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurance company as to a cross-claim by the defendant to the effect that the insurance company had violated Massachusetts General Laws chs. 93A and 176D during its handling of the underlying claim between the plaintiff and the defendant, however, the reviewing court found no error and, accordingly, affirmed that part of the trial court’s judgment.

To Talk to a Personal Injury Lawyer in Cape Cod

Injuries caused by others’ negligence or intentional misconduct can be devastating to the victim. Medical bills can quickly pile up, and additional care may be required in the years to come. The accident victim will likely be off work due to his or her injuries, and, in some cases, he or she may never be able to work again. Those who have been hurt in situations in which an individual, business, or governmental entity has caused serious personal injures may be entitled to money damages for these and other losses, including monetary compensation for pain and suffering. To schedule a consultation about your Cape Cod personal injury case, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III today at 888-262-6664 and set up an appointment.

Unfortunately, the court system is far from perfect, and there can be differences in the outcome of a given case based on these and other factors. Because of this, the plaintiff in a case may choose to file his case in one venue rather than another – if there is a potential choice about such matters, given the facts. Defendants, too, sometime engage in “forum shopping” of sorts by seeking removal of a state case to federal court or transferal of a federal case from one district to another.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent slip and fall negligence case was a man who alleged that he was injured when he slipped on a “wet, dangerous, and hazardous condition” located on the floor of a Massachusetts grocery store. He filed suit against the defendant store owners in a New Jersey state court in late 2019, seeking fair compensation for his medical expenses and associated damages resulting from the fall. The defendants removed the case to a federal court located in New Jersey based on diversity of citizenship.

The defendants filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking transferal of the plaintiff’s case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Alternatively, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit under the forum non conveniens (inconvenient forum) doctrine. The plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction in federal court and that, thus, the matter should be returned to the New Jersey state court in which it was initially filed.

The Court’s Decision

The federal district court in New Jersey granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal district court in Massachusetts. Although the plaintiff insisted that both federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional requirements, the court opined that neither the plaintiff’s pre-litigation demand nor the defendants’ pre-litigation offers had any bearing on the “amount in controversy” question. After all, the court reasoned, settlement offers made prior to the filing of a lawsuit merely reflected the parties’ conception of potential compromises of the claim, not the actual outcome. Once the matter proceeded to trial, such offers would not be controlling on the jury in assessing damages.

After deciding that the federal courts had jurisdiction, the court went on to consider whether a transfer from New Jersey to Massachusetts was in order. The plaintiff averred that he was a “dual resident” of both states. Given that the accident at issue occurred in Massachusetts, most (if not all) of the witnesses to the accident resided in Massachusetts, and all of the records related to the accident (including the plaintiff’s medical records) were located in Massachusetts, the court found that both the public interests or the private interests of the defendants and witnesses to litigate the matter in Massachusetts outweighed the plaintiff’s preference to present his case in New Jersey.

Speak to a Cape Cod Lawyer

A trip to pick up essentials like groceries should not end with a slip and fall accident, possibly requiring an emergency room visit or months of medical care. Shops, restaurants, and other places of businesses owe the public certain duties to keep their premises safe for those who come to do business. If you have been hurt due to the negligence of property owner, you should talk to a lawyer about filing a claim for damages. For an appointment to discuss your situations with an experienced Cape Cod premises liability attorney, please phone the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, today at 888-262-6664. There is no charge for the consultation, and you are under no obligation, should you decide not to pursue litigation against the negligent party after speaking with us.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case (unreported), the plaintiff was a man who suffered a closed head injury and bilateral leg amputations after falling onto subway tracks (owned and maintained by the defendant transportation authority) and being struck by a train. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, averring that the defendant was negligent in failing to adequately staff the station with a safety inspector or a customer service agent (CSA) on the day the accident occurred.

The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that it was immune from liability for the plaintiff’s failure-to-staff claim, citing the discretionary function exception contained in Massachusetts General Laws ch. 258, § 10(b). The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion under the doctrine of present execution.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeals court decided that the defendant was immune from liability on the plaintiff’s claim that it failed to staff the station with sufficient personnel. Reviewing the trial court judge’s decision de novo, the court noted that, under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, a “public employer” such as the defendant was immune from claims based on its exercise or performance (or its failure to perform) a discretionary duty or function. In deciding whether the situation at hand presented a discretionary function, the court determined that the applicable inquiry was whether the defendant had any discretion as to what course of conduct to follow under the circumstances.

After determining that the question of whether to staff a CSA or safety inspector at the station on the day of the accident was discretionary because there was no statute, regulation, or established agency practice actually requiring the defendant to do so, the court went on to hold that, as a matter of law, the defendant had discretion over whether and how to allocate CSAs and safety inspectors to its stations and, thus, § 10(b) immunity applied. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted summary judgment to the defendant as to the plaintiff’s theory regarding insufficient personnel.

Have Questions for a Massachusetts Injury Lawyer?

The negligence of governmental entities, corporations, and individuals can cause serious harm and lifelong injuries to others. If you need to talk to an experienced Cape Cod personal injury and wrongful death lawyer about a recent accident, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664 and schedule a free case evaluation. We handle many types of accident cases, including car and truck wrecks, slip and fall and premises liability cases, and product liability accidents. We also handle medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, and dog bite cases.

Of course, the defendant in such a case is likely to offer up a myriad of possible defenses, blaming the plaintiff for the accident or denying that the condition that led to the injury had been in place long enough for the defendant to have legal notice of it.

In some situations, there may be another possible defense, such as the recreational use statute.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a woman who reportedly fell from the bleachers at an indoor sports facility after watching her child play dekhockey (street hockey). She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, the operator of the facility, seeking monetary compensation for her injuries, including a torn ligament in her knee. The plaintiff’s husband joined in the suit to assert a claim for loss of consortium.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case on the ground that it was immune from liability under the recreational use statute codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 21, § 17C. The superior court treated the motion as if it were a motion for summary judgment, ruling in the defendant’s favor and thereby dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint.

What the Court of Appeals Decided

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Noting that the statute in question was intended to encourage landowners to permit broad, public, and free use of their land for recreational purposes by limiting their obligations to lawful visitors under the common law, the court of appeals pointed out that, although the plaintiffs’ son may have incurred an indirect fee in order to use the defendant’s facilities, the plaintiff herself had entered the premises without charge. Although the plaintiffs attempted to distinguish their case by arguing that the female plaintiff was not at the facility for a recreational purpose, but, rather, to supervise her minor child, the court declined this argument. According to the court, when a parent who entered a recreational facility for free was injured while watching his or her child play in an organized activity in which the players were under the charge of a third-party coach and referee, the parent’s “mere invocation of the term ‘supervision'” was insufficient to stave off a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Lest its holding be misinterpreted, the appellate court noted that it did not rely on the defendant’s “reductionist claim” that owners of recreational facilities of whatever stripe were automatically entitled to the protections of the recreational use statute if the injured spectator was not charged an entrance fee.

Do You Need Legal Advice About a Personal Injury Case?

Serious and even life-threatening injuries can result from so-called “slip and fall” accidents resulting from the negligence of landowners and others charged with the care and maintenance of real property. If you have been hurt on another’s property, you should talk to an attorney about your legal rights, including the right to pursue fair compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To schedule a free consultation with a helpful and experienced Cape Cod premises liability lawyer, please call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unpublished appellate court case, the plaintiff was reportedly an 84 year-old man whose shoe caught in an “eroded concrete surface” near a gas pump, causing him to fall. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant gas station owner, seeking monetary compensation for the injuries that he suffered in the fall. At trial, a fellow customer, who witnessed the incident, testified that the disrepair was readily apparent and had been in place for quite some time. In response, the defendant insisted that the gap that caused the plaintiff’s fall was so minor a defect that, as a matter of law, it could not give rise to a violation of the defendant’s duty of care to the plaintiff.

The jury found in the favor of the plaintiff (who was joined in the action by his wife, who asserted a loss of consortium claim), awarding him $450,000 and his wife $200,000. The trial judge issued a remittitur, reducing the plaintiff’s damages award to $300,000 and the wife’s to $125,000. The plaintiffs accepted the remittitur. The defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or for a new trial; the trial court denied both motions. The Appeals Court’s Opinion

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. In reviewing the defendant’s argument asserting that the condition at issue did not give rise to a breach of duty, the court noted that the case law upon which the defendant relied pertained primarily to defects in public ways and public sidewalks. Municipal liability, according to the court, was based upon different policy considerations than that of for-profit enterprises like the defendant herein. The court went on to hold that, even if this were not so, the defendant’s argument would nevertheless fail based upon the evidence. According to the court, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant had, in fact, violated the duty of care that it owed the plaintiff.

The court went on to disagree with the plaintiff’s arguments that the jury’s inference that the condition at issue caused the plaintiff’s fall was in the nature of speculation and conjecture or that the plaintiff was barred from recovery under the principles of comparative fault.

Call and Schedule a Free Consultation

If you have been hurt in an accident on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to pursue substantial compensatory damages. To schedule a free consultation to discuss your situation with an experienced Cape Cod slip and fall accident attorney, please call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664. If you cannot come in to our Hyannis or Plymouth offices, we can arrange to visit you in your home or hospital room, so there is no reason to delay getting started on your case.

In a negligent security case, a property owner may be held liable for failing to protect the plaintiff from harm caused by a third party – typically a criminal whose intentional actions harm to the plaintiff. Such cases can be challenging, as the defendant typically attempts to shift the blame away from itself and onto the third party.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was stabbed while waiting in his car for a friend outside a theater in 2011. The man sued the theater (and its parent companies), alleging that they were negligent in failing to provide police detail on the theater premises. (The plaintiff’s stabbing occurred on a Tuesday evening about 10 p.m. For some years prior to 2008 or 2009, the defendants had police detail on their premises seven nights a week, but they then restricted the detail to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings only.)more

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, agreeing with them that the plaintiff’s stabbing was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed, noting that, as a general rule, landowners such as the defendants herein are not required to take affirmative steps to protect patrons from the dangerous or unlawful acts of third parties. Although exceptional circumstances can arise in rare cases such that a duty does exist, this is so only if the defendant landowner knew of – or should have known of – the potential for violence. Because the stabbing giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim was not reasonably foreseeable, the appellate court agreed that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Although there was some evidence of nonviolent crimes in the vicinity of the defendants’ property, there was no evidence of prior stabbings or other violent incidents. While some violent incidents had been reported at a nearby establishment, the plaintiff was unable to prove that this activity “leaked” to the defendants’ premises.

Schedule a Free Legal Consultation

Cases seeking compensation for injuries suffered on business properties are very fact-specific. If you or a loved one has been harmed due to a business owner’s negligence or failure to take reasonable precautions to protect patrons against a third party’s criminal action, you should talk to an attorney about your specific situation. To schedule a free, confidential consultation with an experienced Cape Cod negligent security attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664. We serve injured persons throughout Hyannis, Plymouth, and the surrounding area.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms $20 Million Judgment After Customer’s Death at Convenience Store Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Judgment for Bar Patron in Case Against Owner of Establishment Following Head Injury Due to Thrown Beer Bottle

Under Massachusetts law, independent contractors are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. However, they may be able to sue their “employer” (the person or business with whom they had a contractual agreement to perform work) for negligence, if the employer’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner caused physical harm to the worker.

Often, a negligence case has the potential for a larger amount of money damages if the plaintiff is successful; a workers’ compensation case, however, has the advantage of not requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault in his or her accident.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) case, the plaintiff was a man who worked as a chef. When entering a function hall owed by the defendant, the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice, fracturing his ankle. He filed a workers’ compensation claim against the defendant, but the defendant denied liability on the basis that the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Eventually, the parties agreed to settle the workers’ compensation case, and the plaintiff received a lump-sum settlement.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit, asserting that he had suffered medical expenses, lost wages, permanent impairment, pain, and emotional anguish due to the defendant’s negligence. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and he appealed.

The Ruling of the Appeals Court

Phrasing the issue as whether the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152, § 23, barred the plaintiff’s negligence claim, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the defendant. Under the statute, an employee who accepts payment of compensation on account of a personal injury or who makes an agreement under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152, § 48 effectively releases all claims and demands at common law arising from the injury.

The plaintiff argued that his negligence claim against the defendant was not barred under the statute because the Department of Industrial Accidents had not determined whether he was an employee or an independent contractor, but the appellate court held that the plaintiff’s claim was barred nevertheless. The court noted that the plaintiff had pursued his claim through administrative procedures established by the Department and had agreed on a lump-sum settlement; hence, that settlement was his exclusive remedy under Massachusetts law.

Speak to a Massachusetts Injury Attorney

If you have been hurt at work, you should discuss your situation with a lawyer as soon as possible so that you can fully understand your legal rights and address any potential issues that could adversely affect your case. For an appointment to discuss your case with a helpful Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, in Hyannis or Plymouth. You can reach us at 888-262-6664.

Related Blog Posts: Decision to Deny Line-of-Duty Benefits to State Trooper Reversed as Ad Hoc, Per Massachusetts Appeals Court Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Permanent, Total Disability Award in Workers’ Compensation Case

When an accident happens due to a property owner’s negligence, the injured person has the burden of proving that the entity that controlled the area in which the accident happened breached the applicable duty of care.

In a case recently considered by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff in an underlying case was successful in proving negligence, but another dispute arose between the insurance company, a property owner, and an independent contractor regarding who was responsible for paying the judgment awarded to the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit arising from the accident.

Facts of the Case

In the case, the plaintiff was an insurance company who filed suit against its insured, seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the plaintiff had no duty to indemnify the defendant for the verdict in a personal injury lawsuit filed against it and an independent contractor.

The underlying lawsuit was brought by a woman who had tripped and fallen on a “cold joint” constructed by the independent contractor on property owned by the insured. In that case, the jury had assigned 55% of the fault to the independent contractor and 30% to the insured. The insurance company refused to indemnify the insured for the judgment, relying on an “independent contractors exclusion” contained in the general liability policy purchased by the insured.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, and the insured appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The independent contractor (who was also a party to the action) argued that the insurance company had failed to preserve its right to raise the exclusion during the underlying tort action and was, therefore, estopped from doing so in the current action. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the contractor raised the issue for the first time on appeal, and thus its argument on this issue was waived.

With regard to the defendants’ argument that the phrase “arising out of” in the insurance policy at issue was ambiguous, the reviewing court found no ambiguity and went on to hold that, since the injury that gave rise to the underlying tort action was the “cold joint” created by the contractor, the plaintiff in that action’s injury clearly “arose out of” the contractor’s actions. Thus, the independent contractor’s exclusion applied, and no indemnification was required.

Speak to a Knowledgeable Cape Cod Premises Liability Lawyer

Slip and fall accidents can be made more difficult when the ownership, control, or insurance coverage of the property upon which the plaintiff fell is in dispute. If you or a loved one has been hurt on business property or on another person’s land, the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, in Hyannis and Plymouth can advise you concerning a Cape Cod premises liability claim. Call us at 888-262-6664 – the sooner, the better, since these types of cases demand a prompt, fair, and thorough investigation if at all possible.

Related Blog Posts: Massachusetts Appeals Court Sides With Homeowners in Premises Liability Case – No Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Summary Judgment Affirmed Massachusetts Court Rules Security Supervisor’s Statement Inadmissible Hearsay in Slip and Fall Case at Mall

In proving his or her case, the plaintiff may introduce several types of evidence, including physical evidence, if applicable. In a recent case, an injured man sought sanctions against the defendant homeowners for their alleged destruction of a ladder that he alleged caused him to fall. He also sought the reversal of an order of summary judgment entered in the defendants’ favor.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiff was a man who filed a personal injury claim against the defendant property owners (who were the plaintiff’s step-sister and her husband), seeking compensation for injuries he allegedly suffered after a ladder “jolted,” causing him to fall while doing some painting work at the defendants’ home. After discovering that the defendants no longer had the ladder in their possession, the plaintiff sought sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and instead granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The Decision of the Appellate Court

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, quoting the lower court’s finding that, “based on the undisputed evidence… at the time the ladder was destroyed, the defendants did not know… that the evidence might be relevant to litigation.” Since the doctrine of spoliation permits sanctions only when a litigant negligently or intentionally loses or destroys evidence, there was no reason to sanction the defendants because they did not dispose of the ladder until after the plaintiff had told them that he “did not want to sue [them].”

With regard to summary judgment, the plaintiff offered no evidence of a breach of duty by the defendants. Thus, summary judgment for the defendants was the appropriate action. In so holding, the court noted that the mere fact that an accident happened was not evidence of negligence by the defendants, nor did the plaintiff’s failed spoliation claim constitute sufficient evidence to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Get Reliable Advice from an Experienced Cape Cod Injury Attorney

If you or a loved one has been hurt on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to pursue monetary compensation for damages such as lost earnings, medical bills, and pain and suffering. To schedule a free consultation with a skillful Cape Cod premises liability attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at (888) 262-6664 to schedule an appointment in our Hyannis or Plymouth offices. Time is always of the essence in personal injury litigation, so you should seek legal advice as soon as possible concerning your claim.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Business Owner Arrested for Destroying Evidence Following Patron’s Injury In Massachusetts, a Building Owner Can Be Liable for the Death of a Patron by Violating Building Safety Codes

Generally, hearsay statements are not admissible in court, but there are some exceptions. In the example above, the defendant’s statement might be admissible as a declaration against interest. It would be up to the trial court to decide whether, under the particular circumstances of the case, the statement would be an exception to the hearsay rule.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case (unreported), the plaintiff was a woman who slipped and fell in water while walking in a mall. She and her husband filed suit against the defendants, the business that was allegedly responsible for watering plants in the mall and others. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to present evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendants either knew or should have known that there was water on the floor of the mall.

Decision of the Appellate Court

The plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s summary judgment order to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court, relying on the statement of an alleged witness who had reportedly said that the plants had been watered recently. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s order in favor of the defendants.

Although the plaintiffs had proffered a hearsay statement by a security supervisor who was apparently in the mall at the time of the accident, the supervisor was not an employee of any of the defendants named in the lawsuit. Thus, the statement could not be considered an admission against interest as to the defendants. Even if the statement was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, the court was of the opinion that it was not adequate proof that the defendants had actual or constructive notice that there was water on the floor. The court further noted that the plaintiffs would fare no better under the “mode of operation” approach to premises liability, since there was no evidence of a recurring dangerous condition.

Need to Talk to a Cape Cod Attorney About a Slip and Fall Accident?

Although the plaintiffs in this case were unsuccessful, every premises liability lawsuit is unique. As is the case with most personal injury actions, negligence claims arising from a fall or injury on someone else’s property can be very fact-specific. If you or a loved one has been hurt at a mall, restaurant, or other business, and you are wondering whether you may have a cause of action against the owner of the property, the experienced Cape Cod slip-and-fall accident attorneys at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, offer a free consultation. Call us at (888) 262-6664 to schedule an appointment, and do not delay in seeking counsel. Evidence not collected in a timely fashion can easily disappear, making your case harder to prove later.

Related Blog Posts Premises Liability Verdict in Favor of Deceased Pub Patron’s Family is Affirmed by Massachusetts Appeals Court – Bernier v. Smitty’s Sports Pub, Inc. Summary Judgment Ruled Improper in Slip and Fall Case Against Massachusetts Farm and Retail Store – Belanger v. Boys in Berries, LLC

General jurisdiction is much broader, subjecting a defendant to suit in the forum state in all matters, even those that have no direct relationship to the forum state. By contrast, specific jurisdiction exists only with regard to the defendant’s forum-based contacts.

Facts of the Case

In a recently decided case, the plaintiff was a woman who was allegedly hurt as a result of a fall on the premises of a senior living community. The plaintiff (who was joined in the lawsuit by her husband, who sought compensation for loss of consortium) alleged that her fall was caused by the defendants’ failure to exercise due care in maintaining the premises of the living community.

One of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit on the grounds that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction as to that defendant and that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against it under any legal theory. The plaintiffs argued that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court; alternatively, the plaintiffs requested that they be allowed to engage in jurisdictional discovery.

The Court’s Order

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. The court first reviewed the various defendants against which the plaintiffs had filed suit. The first defendant was a Virginia corporation that had been registered as a foreign corporation in Massachusetts since 2003; the court noted that this defendant managed and operated the assisted living center where the female plaintiff’s injury occurred and was indisputably a proper party to the action. Likewise, the court found that there was no dispute as to the court’s jurisdiction over the second defendant, a Delaware limited liability corporation registered in Massachusetts since 2005.

With regard to the third defendant, the court observed that it was a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Virginia; it was also the parent company of one of the other defendants. In reviewing the evidence and arguments submitted by the respective parties, the court held that there was an issue as to whether the third defendant had sufficient contacts with Massachusetts or exerted sufficient control over its subsidiary to invoke specific personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. Accordingly, the court decided that the best course of action was to allow the plaintiffs to take additional discovery aimed at the third defendant’s relationship with or control of the other defendants.

Need Help with a Cape Cod Slip and Fall Claim?

Serious injuries can occur as a result of property owners’ negligence. If you or a loved one has been hurt in a slip and fall accident on someone else’s property, you should consult with an attorney about your legal right to seek monetary compensation. To schedule an appointment with a knowledgeable Cape Cod premises liability lawyer, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at (888) 262-6664. There is no charge for the consultation, and we can come to your home or hospital room, if need be.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Defense Verdict, Despite “Whopper” Told by Defendant’s Representative in Deposition – Wright v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc. Federal Court in New York Finds that Personal Jurisdiction and Venue of Premises Liability Case Are in Massachusetts – Bonkowski v. HP Hood, LLC