Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

Boston area Massachusetts registry of motor vehicles inspectors and local police recently conducted "Operation Graduation." They surprised teenage drivers at 33 Boston area high schools during a Massachusetts state-wide effort to get them to drive safer during prom and graduation season. The personal injury attorneys at the Boston office of Neil Burns have represented hundreds of children and teenagers after they have been injured in car accidents. "We are always looking at ways to keep our children and teenagers safe," says Boston personal injury attorney Neil Burns.

Boston area enforcement teams set up unannounced safety checks to reward teen drivers who were in compliance with the Massachusetts's junior operator and safety belt laws and warn those in violation about the consequences.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Safety Checks at Boston Area High Schools " »

For Massachusetts and Boston area residents, the warmer weather often means spending more time outside. So motorcycle and pedestrian injury attorney Neil Burns wants to remind Boston area pedestrians and motorcyclists to remain safe as the warmer weather approaches. "It's a good time to review Massachusetts laws and road rules pertaining to pedestrian and motorcycle operation and safety," says Boston injury attorney Neil Burns, citing Massachusetts laws and regulations.

In Massachusetts, motorcycle riders and pedestrians alike are obligated to follow certain traffic regulations and road rules which help ensure safety. The following laws help promote the safe
interaction between motorists and pedestrians. Motorcycle riders must yield to any pedestrians entering or using a crosswalk in their travel path; never let your motorcycle block a crosswalk; motorcycles must yield to pedestrians if the traffic signal is red or if it is red and yellow; and motorcycles should never pass a vehicle that has stopped or is slowing for a pedestrian.

As for pedestrians, they should use a crosswalk if one is available; at crosswalks with pedestrian signals, they should use the push button on the signal pole and wait for the WALK signal. Special lighted signals are often used at crosswalks to indicate when pedestrians may cross a roadway. Pedestrians must obey the DON'T WALK and WALK signal, and at intersections without push buttons you will get WALK signals automatically; and, before you cross a roadway, stop at the curb and look left and right for traffic. Pedestrians must be alert, and be especially aware of cars turning onto the road you are crossing.

The Massachusetts House, sitting in Boston, overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require Massachusetts and Boston area restaurants and bars to purchase a liquor legal liability insurance policy to cover bodily injury or death. "While we don't usually comment on House bills, we wanted to bring this Bill to people's attention," said Boston personal injury lawyer, Neil Burns. "We represent clients injured in Boston area bars and restaurants and this Bill will aid with collectability."

By a margin of 145-4, the House approved the Bill and sent the Bill onto the Senate. As House Bill 275, it would require restaurants and bars to purchase a liquor legal liability insurance policy to cover bodily injury or death. The policy would be required to contain minimum coverage of $250,000 for injury to or death of one person, and $500,000 for more than one person.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Bars May Need Insurance" »

Two Boston area attorneys were temporarily suspended when, according to the Lawrence, Massachusetts court, they "put their self interest ahead of that of the client." Ferreira, Pedro (Lawyers Weekly No. 25-010-10) (April 8, 2010). This was a worker's compensation case involving the Department of Industrial Accidents, and Boston legal malpractice attorney Neil Burns has represented hundreds of clients in cases where an attorney did not put the client's best interest first.

In the Ferreira case, "On August 3, 2004, the employee suffered a back injury at work. The insurer accepted the case and began payment of temporary total incapacity benefits under §34" of the Worker's Compensation Act. "Sometime thereafter, the employee claimed a psychiatric injury as a sequela to the back injury. The insurer was prepared to accept the psychiatric injury until a dispute arose regarding the amount of any attorney's fee which might be due." The two parties were unable to resolve the attorney's fee issue. A hearing was scheduled in the Boston suburb of Lawrence, but the employee's attorney did not attend the hearing.

Continue reading "Boston Area Attorneys Suspended for Failing to Fully Represent Client " »

For Massachusetts residents, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently announced a major bicycling safety initiative for the City of Boston. Boston injury attorney Neil Burns has represented many victims who suffer injuries resulting from bicycle accidents. We "wants Boston and Massachusetts residents to stay safe while riding their bicycles."

Mayor Thomas M. Menino announced Boston's first-ever Bicycling Safety Summit to be held at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 21 at Boston University's Morse Auditorium. The Summit will gather area bicyclists and high-ranking city officials to discuss ways of improving safety for everyone who uses Boston's roadways. The Mayor's announcement comes in the wake of a third recent bike accident and ahead of Boston Bike Week next month.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Bicycle Safety in Boston " »

In the Boston suburb of Natick, Massachusetts, a 2009 house fire caused serious damage. Fidelity National Insurance Company refused to pay the claim, and the home owners have been fighting in court every since. Boston Attorney Neil Burns has seen this scenario many times, and has successfully fought insurance companies in order to protect the rights of his clients.
The judge in the case in Natick, Massachusetts recently ruled that the home owners were entitled to a protective order, barring the insurer from conducting unreasonable discovery. The homeowners, or plaintiff's, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant insurance company to compel payment of a claim they brought under their homeowners' policy. During the course of the case, the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from conducting unreasonable discovery and the judge ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to a protective order.

The judge noted that "[C]ertain of [defendant] Fidelity's requests, i.e., information regarding substance abuse or applications for public assistance, are completely irrelevant at this juncture, given the complete dearth of evidence to establish that the fire that affected the plaintiffs' home was anything but accidental. Since December 15, 2009, the sole evidence pertaining to the source and origin of the fire indicates that it was simply an unfortunate event, and there is no credible information pointing to anything untoward about the plaintiffs' claim.
"As Fidelity has not offered any information to counter the Natick fire investigator's report that the fire appears to have been accidental, the court concludes that Fidelity's requests are unduly burdensome and serve no purpose other than to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the plaintiffs. ... While Fidelity maintains that the requested documents and examinations under oath are necessary in order to complete its investigation into the plaintiffs' claims, it has not made even a minimal showing that further examination is likely to substantiate its allusions that the plaintiffs intentionally caused the fire. ... Whatever private suspicions Fidelity may harbor, they are not sufficient to justify Fidelity's dragnet of every aspect of the plaintiffs' personal lives. Because the court can discern no good-faith basis for Fidelity's assertion that additional inquiry into the plaintiffs' highly personal affairs is 'reasonably required,' a protective order is appropriate to prevent Fidelity from abusing its contractual and statutory right to discovery. ..."
The case cited above is: Beck, et al. v. Fidelity National Insurance Co. (Muse, J.) (Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 10-01004) (April 1, 2010).

Boston and Massachusetts homeowners who also own dogs must disclose the fact that they own dogs to their homeowner's insurance company. "This is so important." says Boston injury attorney Neil Burns, who has represented many Boston residents with dog bite injuries, "if your dog bites someone, your homeowner's insurance may only offer coverage if you have previously informed them that you own a dog."

This point was recently illustrated in a case decided by the Appeals Courts. In Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Eldridge, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-360-10), the trial judge had ruled that an insurance company had a duty to defend its policyholders who had been sued for injuries caused by their dogs. But the Appeals Court overruled the trial judge, finding that the trial judge erred because the policyholders did not inform the insurance company that they owned dogs when they applied for homeowner's insurance coverage.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Homeowners Must Disclose Dogs To Insurance Company" »

Massachusetts drivers and Boston area residents are involved in numerous car accidents every year. Unfortunately, some people are injured through no fault of their own. Many Boston area residents are injured in rear-end car accidents, and some people suffer brain injuries in these car accidents. The attorneys at the Boston office of the Law Office of Neil Burns have helped clients recover after they have been involved in a rear-end car accident and have suffered an injury, including traumatic brain injury.

Recently, a Boston area law firm reported the settlement of traumatic brain injury claim. The driver was stopped at a light when he was rear-ended by the defendant. The force of the collision caused the driver's vehicle to rear-end the car in front of him. The driver alleged that, during the accident, his head hit the headrest forcefully. After the accident, the driver claimed that he was dazed and had neck pain and a headache. The driver continued to treat for his head injuries. All testing, including MRI's and EMG's were negative, meaning there was no objective test that showed an injury.

Eventually, the injured driver of the car went to a neuropsychologist, and a psychiatrist. Thus, while the his treating physicians opined that his medical conditions were permanent and causally related to the motor vehicle accident, the insurance companies expert testified that the driver's injury was minor because he did not suffer a direct blow to the head, he did not suffer a loss of consciousness, and diagnostic testing was negative. He also said that the injured driver's condition resolved within a few weeks after the collision. The insurance company also argued the driver suffered no lost wages because he suffered no lost time from work. The Boston law firm reported that the case was resolved at mediation, following discovery, and immediately prior to trial.

If you are injured in a rear-end car accident or any othe type of accident or collision, contact the Law Office of Neil Burns for an evaluation of your claim, and for someone who will fight for you.

Boston is a large tourist destination for people inside and outside of Boston, Massachusetts. As such, hotels in Boston are numerous, as are injuries resulting from those hotel stays. The injury attorneys at the Boston Law Office of Neil Burns can help if you are injured while staying in Boston, Massachusetts. Some of the injuries that occur while staying in Boston area hotels include falling in the bathroom or shower/tub areas.

An example of an injury occurring at a hotel in Massachusetts involves the case of Deloria v. The Druker Company, Ltd. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-345-10)). The case involved the question of whether there was "the existence of a danger," concerning a hotel's bathtub area. In the case, "The plaintiff argues on appeal that the motion judge erred in concluding as a matter of law that the raised floor of the hotel bathtub was an open and obvious condition and that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the condition of the bathtub was unsafe and defective. Guided by our decision in Quinn v. Morganelli, [73 Mass. App. Ct. 50 (2008)], we agree with the plaintiff that the jury reasonably could have found that the bathtub posed a danger to the plaintiff, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of that danger. ... The deposition testimony of the plaintiff about her failure to perceive the change in level between the floor of the bathroom and the bathtub, her failure to notice the warning posted, and the report authored by the plaintiff's expert, would reasonably allow the jury to draw such a conclusion.

"Reasonable jurors could also differ in their opinion as to whether the bathtub configuration constituted an 'open and obvious' danger. Although the change in level between the floor of the bathroom and tub was certainly open to inspection, we cannot say as a matter of law that, upon stepping out the tub after a shower, the lengthy step down would be obvious without visual cues alerting one to that fact. Consequently, the plaintiff may proceed on both failure to warn and failure to remedy theories. ..."

A case filed in the Boston Municipal Court shows how important it is for Massachusetts residents to timely file all insurance documents following a car accident where you are injured. As a Boston car accident attorney helping those injured in car accidents, I cannot stress how important it is to contact an attorney as soon as practicable following the accident. Certain Massachusetts car accident insurance forms must be timely filed in order to preserve your claim, and the Personal Injury Protection form is one of those forms.

In March 2010, a case originally decided at the Boston Municipal Court was upheld by the Appellate Division. The Court found in favor of the defendant insurance company because the plaintiff, or the person injured in the car accident, failed to file their Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Application in a timely fashion. The Court ruled that because the form was filed too late, the injured person was not entitled to personal injury benefits.

This is extremely important because it is the Personal Injury Protection part of your insurance policy that pays for medical bills and lost wages when you are injured in a car accident. So, if you do not file the form in time, there will be no money available to pay your medical bills or lost wages. Now, it is true that before the insurance company can refuse to pay your medical bills or lost wages, they must show they were prejudiced in the delayed filing of the application, and that the delayed filing prejudiced the insurance company by depriving it of evidence critical to the investigation and payment of, and defense against, your claims. That's a lot of legal language in order to say that you must timely file all car accident insurance forms, because negative consequences, including the denial of your claim, may result from you failure to do so.
The case cited above is: Burgos, et al. v. Pilgrim Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-017-10) (10 pages).

Boston experienced its largest fire in years, when a 9-alarm fire recently ripped through a residential building in Boston's Back Bay neighborhood. The Boston injury attorneys at the Law Office of Neil Burns can help if you are injured in a fire or other catastrophic event. And while the Boston accident attorneys at the Law Office of Neil Burns can help you, rental insurance can also help take care of you and your belongings.

On April 7, 2010, a large fire tore through a 10-story condominium building in Boston and one firefighter was injured." There were flames shooting out of the Mass Ave. side of the building. It was pretty intense. They had some trouble getting the ladder trucks up there because the flames were coming out so strong," witness Maureen Toomey said. "From what I heard, the fire started on the seventh floor and went up," said a resident who lives in the building. "It used to be a hotel, and they converted it into apartment buildings."

The building was heavily damaged. A Boston Fire Department spokesman estimated that the fire caused at least $3.5 million in damage. Thus, for the residents of the building, smoke, water, and other damage could be heavy, with lots of personal belongings lost. In addition, the building was evacuated and residents were not allowed back in. The Law Office of Neil Burns reminds you of the value of renter's insurance. Renter's insurance can provide for replacement housing, and can compensate you for damages incurred inside your individual apartment, like many of those in the Boston Back Bay fire.

A Massachusetts Court sitting in Worcester decided a case on March 22, 2010 involving The Home Depot and a person who was injured while shopping at the store. It is important to have a Boston personal injury attorney with extensive experience in handling injury claims at large retail stores, and the Boston Law Office of Neil Burns has been handling such claims since 1985.

In the case, a plaintiff suffered personal injuries when a display sign for garage doors manufactured by the defendant, Clopay Building Products, Inc., fell on him while he was shopping at Home Depot.

But the Court ruled against the injured plaintiff, holding that he could not recover damages from Clopay Building Products, Inc., because he did not demonstrate that Clopay Building Products, Inc., breached any duty to him. The Court noted a basic rule of injury law, called negligence, in saying that "'To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relation between the breach of the duty and the damage." In this case, the plaintiff failed to show that Clopay Building Products, Inc. owed him any duty. Thus, while the plaintiff's case could proceed against The Home Depot, or the injured person could continue suing The Home Depot, the Court dismissed the case as against Clopay Building Products, Inc.

Continue reading "Injury at Massachusetts Home Depot " »

You rent an apartment in Boston or another city or town in Massachusetts. When you are injured at your home, is it your landlord's fault and can you sue your landlord? These are important questions that the Boston slip and fall attorneys at the Law Office of Neil Burns can help you decide. A recent case that happened in Brockton, Massachusetts shows that even though you may be able to sue your landlord, you must always prove certain legal elements in order to win. The attorneys at the Law Office of Neil Burns can help with the legal complexity of slip and fall cases.

In the case in Brockton, Civetti v. Petti, (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-011-10). a tenant sued the defendant landlord after she fell on the stairs leading to her apartment. But after a jury trial in which the tenant lost, the Appeal Court found that the trial judge rightly entered judgment for the landlord because the plaintiff failed to prove her negligence claim. Thus, even though the tenant claimed that she fell down the stairs because she caught her shoe on a nail that was protruding in the stairway, and that the fall was caused by the landlord's negligence in maintaining the property, the judge upheld the jury's finding that the landlord was not negligent and owed the tenant nothing.

Continue reading "Suing Massachusetts Landlords for Injuries" »

If you file a legal malpractice claim in Massachusetts, beware that what you think may be attorney client privileged communications, may not be privileged at all! In a recent Boston legal malpractice case, a technical motion regarding what was "discoverable" resulted in a huge loss of privacy and attorney client privilege for the client.

Lawyers Weekly staff writer, Eric T. Berkman wrote: "Neil Burns, a legal-malpractice lawyer in Boston who was not involved in the case, said the decision simply shows that a malpractice plaintiff 'can't have his cake and eat it, too.' By logical extension, Burns said, "any subsequent attorney representing the plaintiff regarding the same divorce action should be required to provide information regarding communications and work product."

Continue reading "Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Newspaper Quotes Legal Malpractice Lawyer Neil Burns" »

In Massachusetts, the Boston Municipal Court's Appellate Division decided the case of Cotton v. Hanover Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-010-1), in favor of the insurance company because the claimant failed to show up to two scheduled medical examination appointments.

In the Cotton case, the judge denied "personal injury benefits" to the injured person because he failed to attend two scheduled independent medical examinations. These are also known as "insurance medical examinations." The injured person tried to argue that an insurance company must show actual prejudice before it can deny an injured person's claim for benefits even if an injured person fails to attend two medical examination appointments. But the Court disagreed.

It was held that the trial judge acted permissibly in finding for the insurance company without requiring the defendant insurance company to show that it had been prejudiced by the plaintiff's conduct, or by the injured person's failure to attend the medical examination appointments.

Continue reading "Attending Massachusetts Insurance Medical Examinations" »

In the Boston suburb of Worcester, Massachusetts, a Superior Court Judge found the nightclub owner 30 Worcester Center, Inc., responsible for injuries a patron sustained while at the club.

Such was the case recently when a 16-year-old girl was punched in the face by another patron at a nightclub owned by 30 Worcester Center, Inc. In that case the Judge found that the defendant nightclub owner was negligent and should be ordered to pay the plaintiff damages of $14,000. The Judge found the nightclub was negligent in the following respect:

Continue reading "Night Club Injuries to Massachusetts Residents " »

As a Massachusetts resident, if you suffer an injury, you must timely file your claim. "A Boston resident, for example, would have to file their case at the appropriate court within three years from the time they knew about the injury," notes Boston injury attorney Neil Burns, "if you fail to timely file, you lose your right to file, forever. If you're injured, don't delay in calling us."

In a recent case at the Boston Municipal Court, the judge dismissed the case where a plaintiff filed a personal injury action against a defendant hair dye manufacturer after expiration of the applicable three-year statute of limitations. The Judge's said that "The parties agree that the applicable statutes prescribe a three-year limitations period. ... The parties also agree that the statutes of limitations began to run when [plaintiff Anne-Marie] Cormier had notice of the injury. The parties differ, however, as to the date on which Cormier knew, or should have known of her injury. Cormier claims that for statute of limitations purposes, she did not learn, and could not have learned, of her injuries until after she was examined by the dermatologist. [Defendant] L'Oreal [Paris] maintains that the statutes of limitations began to run when Cormier reasonably knew she was injured and that her injury may have been caused by L'Oreal.

Continue reading "Injury Claims In Massachusetts Must Be Timely Filed " »

In the Boston suburb of Salem, Massachusetts, a jury recently decided that a plaintiff who slipped and fell in a parking lot while going to Dunkin' Donuts was not entitled to money damages.

Hoey v. Argeros Realty Trust Court/case no.: Salem Superior Court, No. ESCV2007-00259. Boston slip and fall attorney Neil Burns notes that, "It's always tough to speculate regarding jury's decisions, but the plaintiff in that case did not file her claim until some four years after she fell. You always want to talk to an attorney soon after suffering and injury from an accident. Waiting four years could not have helped."

Continue reading "Delayed Massachusetts Slip and Fall Claim " »

Boston residents should choose their Massachusetts car insurance carefully. "There is more to choosing car insurance than just the cost," says Boston car accident attorney Neil Burns, "you must also conisder who you are protecting in case of a car accident." Take the recent case of Wagenmaker v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-079-10) (3 pages) (Per Curiam) (1st Cirtcuit). In that case, the passenger in a vehicle was involved in accident when the car she was travelling in was struck by an unidentified vehicle. This type of car accident is commonly known as a hit and run. The passenger was injured in the accident, and sought to sue the driver's insurance company because the other vehicle, though at fault in the accident, was not identified. Thus, the passenger sought uninsured motorist benefits under a policy issued by Amica Insurance since they covered the owner of the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger.

But Amica denied the claim. The Court found that Amica was right in denying the passenger's claim because the owner of the vehicle had cancelled his uninsured motorist coverage some nine months before the accident. "... The change was reflected in the policy's amended declarations page, which clearly indicated that the car was 'NOT COVERED' for damages by an uninsured driver."

Continue reading "Choosing Massachusetts Automobile Insurance " »