The Boston Globe reports (Duck Boat, Seven Other Vehicles in Boston Crash) that a Duck Boat crashed with seven other cars last Friday (July 16, 2010) afternoon. The accident happened near Hatch Shell on Storrow Drive in Boston, MA. Several injured people were taken to nearby hospitals.
This was the second car crash in one week involving a Duck Boat. The Boston Globe reported (Woman Heading to Wedding Is Passenger in Crash Involving Duck Boat) only days before (July 13, 2010), a car collided with a Duck Boat on Court Street in downtown Boston as the car changed lanes attempting to pass the Duck Boat on the congested, narrow Court Street.
If you or a loved on has been injured in a car accident in Massachusetts, call Attorney John Sheehan at 866-979-4113 for a free, no obligation consultation.
Source: Boston Globe
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
Falling Concrete Injures Worker
As reported by The Salem News recently, a worker at a courthouse construction site in Salem, Massachusetts was very seriously injured when he was struck by a concrete block that fell several stories above. OSHA is investigating the accident.
In a construction accident like this, oftentimes a third-party, such as the General Contractor or a Sub-Contractor, may be legally responsible for the workers’ injury.
Under federal regulations enforced by OSHA, the General Contractor has a non-delegable duty for the safety of all workers on its jobsite.
A worker injured on a construction site accident has a right to receive workers compensation benefits which, generally, pays a percentage of his lost wages and medical costs. In addition, a worker injured in a construction site accident may have a legal right to compensation from a third-party such as the General Contractor or a Sub-Contractor.
If you have been injured in a construction site accident or any type of work accident in Massachusetts, contact Attorney John J. Sheehan for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 866-979-4113.
Source: The Salem News
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
As reported by the Boston Herald on 7/9/2010 (Judge Orders Accused In Hit-And-Run Off The Road), a Lawrence, Massachusetts nursing home worker was reaching for her cell while driving when she ran over a toddler playing in a driveway. Luckily, the child was not killed but suffered multiple, severe injuries including a shattered jaw.
The driver, who fled the scene, was later arrested. A Lawrence District Court Judge ordered not to drive while criminal charges are pending.
This tragic accident is an example of the potential deadly dangers caused by distracted driving.
A week earlier, Governor Patrick signed a law banning texting while driving.
Even though the driver in the Lawrence case was not texting while driving, it’s an example of the danger of distracted driving.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are three common types of distractions:
- Visual - taking your eyes off the road
- Manual - taking your hands off the wheel
- Cognitive - taking your mind off what you’re doing.
According to U.S. Government statistics, approximately 20% of all car crashes in 2008 were caused by some type of distracted driving (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - NHTSA). Almost 6,000 people died nationwide from distracted driving, and almost 500,000 people were injured by distracted driving in 2008 according to the NHTSA.
If you have been injured in a car accident in Massachusetts, contact Attorney John J. Sheehan for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 866-979-4113.
Source: Boston Herald, USDOT and NHTSA.
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
Time and time again I talk to injured workers who put off hiring a lawyer hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Funny, I’ve yet to see that happen.
Many injured workers are afraid that the insurance company will punish them by stopping their workers’ comp check or denying medical treatment if they hire a lawyer.
The injured worker doesn’t realize, however, that the adjuster is interested in protecting the insurer’s money and is not looking out for the injured workers’ best interests.
Case in point.
Within a week of accepting liability for the case, the adjuster asks an injured worker to sign an agreement to give the insurer another six months to continue to pay workers comp benefits “without prejudice”. That means that the insurance company has another six months to stop the workers comp checks with just seven days notice to the injured worker.
What happens next?
Insurer sends injured worker to one of its doctors to do an “independent” (translated - “insurer”) exam. Insurance doctor writes a report that the medical condition is not related to the work accident. The adjuster quickly stops all workers comp checks right before Christmas. Even then, the injured worker continues to talk to the adjuster on his own — without being represented by a lawyer — in the desperate hope that the insurance company will change its mind and reinstate his workers comp checks. The adjuster strings the injured worker along saying things like: she’s evaluating the claim, call back in a week or she’s reviewing the matter with her supervisor. Meanwhile, months go by before the injured worker finally wakes up and hires a workers comp lawyer to protect his rights and secure payment of his workers comp benefits.
I’ve seen variations of the same deceptive, bate and switch tactics by insurance adjusters time and time again. Without legal representation by an experienced workers comp lawyer, an injured worker is literally at the mercy of the insurance company.
When you’re hurt on the job, you have legal rights. Following a serious, disabling work accident, you need to hire an experienced workers comp lawyer right away even if you’re receiving workers comp benefits.
Don’t stick your head in the sand hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Get legal representation with an experienced workers comp lawyer without delay.
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
As reported in this week’s Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected the “open and obvious danger” defense in a “snow and ice case”. The case is Soederberg v. Concorde Greene Condominium Association et al., (Mass. App. Ct. Docket No. 09-P-380).
The case involved an elderly resident of the condominium complex who broke her hip when she slipped and fell on frozen slush while trying to walk to the parking lot.
The trial judge instructed the jury that it should issue a defense verdict if the it determined that the icy condition was an “open and obvious danger”. The jury responded affirmatively to that special question and issued a defense verdict pursuant to the trial judge’s instructions.
In rejecting the “open and obvious danger” defense, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held:
“We conclude that the open and obvious danger rule does not operate to negate a landowner’s duty to remedy hazardous conditions resulting from unnatural accumulations of ice and snow, at least where, as here, those hazards lie in a known path of travel.”
It remains to be seen who extensive the impact of the decision will be. Presumably, defense counsel will continue to use the “open and obvious danger” defense in order to argue that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. It may not, under the Soederberg case, be used bar to recovery absolutely.
Copyright © 2010 John J. Sheehan
