By Robert I. Feinberg | Published June 5, 2015 | Posted in Auto Accidents, Pedestrians | Leave a comment
Pedestrians often suffer extreme injuries when struck by a motor vehicle. In this video blog, I discuss the various legal considerations that one should be aware of concerning a pedestrian who is involved in such an accident in Massachusetts. One general consideration is the perspective of the opposing insurance company. The insurance company will attempt to defend against the pedestrian’s claim by invoking a Massachusetts statute that requires a pedestrian to cross in a crosswalk if one is available within 300 feet.
In a recent video blog, Defense attorney John Johnson spoke of important factors that he uses to assess a case. He explicitly mentioned that statements made soon after an accident or to a medical provider are very relevant to his determination of liability. As a plaintiff’s attorney, I want to point out that this can go either way: statements of the defendant at an accident scene are also very probative and for the same reasons.
I often have clients who report to me that their medical provider will corroborate the crucial fact that the injury was caused by the accident. A review of the records, however, may reveal that there is a “possible” relationship between the accident and the injury. Sometimes, the term “could be related” is used. Thus, the causal connection is unclear at best.
In 1985, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co., 394 Mass. 350 (1985), an important case pertaining to auto insurance. In that case, the Court used a sentence that has stuck with me ever since reading the opinion: “Navigating the tortuous twists of automobile insurance law is at least as difficult as the uninitiated driver’s first foray into the streets of Boston.” This is an accurate statement because understanding and appreciating all of the nuances of automobile insurance law in Massachusetts is a very difficult task.
A premises liability case is one in which a person sustains an injury while on somebody else’s property, whether it be a landlord, business or other entity. These cases almost always involve an issue of management or control over the premises. The question is whether the landlord or other person in control exercised reasonable care in maintaining the area.
This will be the concluding blog in the series of discussions about the recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Fyffe v. MBTA. There are a few more points worth considering. First, I have discussed the concept of speculation by a medical expert or an attorney in past blogs and the Appeals Court in Fyffe discusses the subject at some length. Specifically, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s attorney attempt to bring up the issue of quadriplegia because there was no record of evidence to support such speculation. There had been no suggestion of this issue in the pretrial documents.
This will be the third blog in our series of discussions on the recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision of Fyffe v. MBTA. We continue our analysis of the lessons that can be learned from this case, one certain to be cited by defense lawyers. While the majority of cases do not go to trial, the way that a trial would unfold and the anticipated evidence that would be presented at such a trial influences to a very large extent the amount of recovery that might be sought from a pre-trial settlement.
This will be the second blog in a series of discussions on the recent case Fyffe v. MBTA, which was decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on October 6, 2014. There are several lessons to be learned from this case in the context of personal injury litigation. First, the Appeals Court pointed out that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff’s attorney to inform the jurors of the extensive media coverage that this case was receiving.
In our video blog we discuss the very recent recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (2014), a case that seems to be viewed by many plaintiffs attorneys as unsettling. I, on the other hand, find that the case merely sets out what must be established to prove a case. To be sure, it also sets out what must not be done.
Prior to law school, I doubt that I had ever heard of the term causality, at least not in a legal context. However, the term’s basic meaning—something that brings about a result or occurrence—is not too different from what the word means to a lawyer. In a legal context, the term causality generally refers to the relationship between the allegedly negligent act and the resulting injury.