Car Accidents

NTSP Proposes Lowering BAC Limit for Drunk Drivers to 0.05%, Potentially Affecting Massachusetts Residents

February 17, 2016 | by John S. Moffa

Drunk driving is one of the highest causes of injuries and fatalities in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), roughly 30 people die each day in a motor vehicle collision that involves an intoxicated driver. Also, the estimated yearly costs associated with alcohol-induced car accidents totals nearly $60 million. In 2013, drunk driving accidents accounted for 31 percent of traffic accident fatalities that occurred in the United States. The National Highway Transportation Administration has also issued a number of studies and reports highlighting the dangers that result when alcohol and driving are mixed.

Recently, the National Transportation and Safety Board (“NTSB”) has recommended lowering the legal blood alcohol content to 0.05 percent from 0.08 percent. The NTSB’s recommendation is intended to help combat these devastating injury and death tolls associated with drunk driving across the United States.

Massachusetts Legislature to Consider Multiple Bicyclist, Pedestrian, and Motorist Safety Bills

January 21, 2016 | by John S. Moffa

The Massachusetts legislature is set to consider a number of bills that would provide greater protections for bicyclists throughout the state.

First, the Vulnerable Users Bill would impose a three-feet law on motorists when passing or operating a vehicle near a so-called “vulnerable user,” even if doing so would require the motorist to steer into another lane or cross a center line. As proposed, the definition of a vulnerable user is broad, including first responders, construction site employees, pedestrians, police, and bicyclists. According to research included with the legislative proposal, bicycle accidents involving impacts from the rear constitute 40 percent of incidents resulting in death. This law attempts to reduce that figure.

Massachusetts Federal Judge Rules Defense Not Entitled To Plaintiff’s Mental Health Records in Car Accident Case

December 14, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

In a recent car accident case, a Massachusetts federal judge held that the defendant was not entitled to obtain copies of the plaintiff’s mental health records. In Conklin v. Feitelberg, a woman suffered severe injuries as the result of a car crash that occurred in June 2011 involving the defendant. In her complaint, the plaintiff brought claims for negligence, seeking compensation for medical bills, lost wages, emotional distress, permanent injuries, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

During discovery, the defense informed the plaintiff that it intended to seek copies of medical records from the five physicians from whom the plaintiff had sought mental health treatment. The subpoena that the defendant prepared requested records for the period of one year before the accident through to the present day. In response, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), claiming that the mental health records were privileged. The defendant also filed a motion to compel production of the mental health records.

Snow and Ice Accumulation Create Dangers on Massachusetts Roadways

November 28, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

New England is no stranger to severe winters that bring several feet of snow in one storm. For many Massachusetts residents, this poses serious problems when it comes to handling our daily chores and getting to work on time. As the snow piles up on the roadways and is removed to the roadside, it can narrow the number of lanes available for travel, making it hard to see roadway obstructions, pedestrians, and traffic signals and signs.

It also wreaks havoc on the roadways, leading to a rise in motor vehicle accidents during the storm season and winter months. Although some dangers cannot be avoided on the road during this particularly challenging time of year, there is one simple thing motorists can do to help minimize the risk of accidents: clean the snow and ice off windshields, sideview mirrors, and windows.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal of Complaint Seeking Arbitration of UM Benefits Claim

November 8, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

One of the most common issues that arises in a car accident case is a dispute between the injured victim and the responsible driver’s insurance company. In many instances, the defendant’s insurer will try to avoid paying benefits to the injured plaintiff, causing many headaches for everyone involved.

Although you’d think the injured party’s own insurance company would have a better track record when it comes to cooperation, in many instances that is not the case. In Regis v. Progressive Insurance Company, the plaintiff made a claim under his own insurance policy seeking benefit payments pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage included within. The plaintiff and his insurance company were unable to reach an agreement, and the plaintiff filed suit requesting the court to order his insurer into arbitration.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Reverses Zero Damages Award in Car Accident Case

November 1, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

In the recent case of Rose v. Farina, a Massachusetts Court of Appeals was presented with the question of whether a jury was inconsistent in the way that it answered three targeted questions presented to them in a motor vehicle accident case. The facts of the case are as follows. During 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a car accident resulting in severe injuries to the plaintiff. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff contended that the defendant was at fault for the accident and responsible for his injuries. During the trial, the defendant offered evidence indicating that the plaintiff’s injuries were preexisting and not a result of the car accident. The trial also included expert witness testimony regarding the plaintiff’s injuries.

At the close of trial, the jury was tasked with addressing three specific questions: do you find the defendant negligent, was the defendant’s negligence the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and how much money would adequately and fairly compensate the plaintiff for the injuries and damages he sustained due to the defendant’s negligence.

Drugged Driving is on the Rise and Just as Dangerous as Drunk Driving

October 28, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

Many people are familiar with the concept of driving while drunk, which is commonly referred to as driving under the influence. In Massachusetts, however, the technical name for this offense is operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This important distinction is intended to cover those drivers who are under the influence of substances other than alcohol and who pose a threat to other motorists and pedestrians.

In a recent article from CNN, the number of reported incidences of motorists driving under the influence of marijuana is increasing. According to nationwide statistics, incidences of so-called “drugged” driving have risen from 12 percent in 2007 to 15 percent in 2014. These statistics were compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety information service based on voluntary roadside surveys, which involve the volunteers contributing saliva or blood samples on the roadside.

Massachusetts Court Rules Personal Injury Protection Benefits Determination Includes Exams by Physical Therapists

October 26, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

Massachusetts is one of 17 states that require motorists to obtain Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage as part of their auto insurance coverage policies. The benefits provided under PIP are called no-fault insurance coverage, meaning that you have a right to make a claim with your insurer to receive PIP benefits after you have been involved in an accident, whether or not you were at fault. Many injured motorists file a claim for PIP benefits to cover their medical expenses following a collision, which can become incredibly expensive.

In the recent case of Ortiz v. Examworks, Inc., the plaintiff suffered injuries as a passenger in a vehicle. The owner of the vehicle owned an insurance policy through Progressive Insurance. The injured passenger filed a claim with the insurance company, seeking payment of PIP benefits. According to Massachusetts law, whenever a claimant seeks payment of PIP benefits, the claimant must undergo an examination by an independent medical examiner. Accordingly, the insurance company contacted the defendant driver’s insurer to arrange for an independent medical examination, or IME. The defendant’s insurance company arranged the appointment with a physical therapist instead of a medical doctor.

Criminal Charges Filed Against General Motors for Failure to Disclose Product Defects

October 24, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

In August 2015, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied its largest fine to date against Fiat Chrysler for the car company’s failure to fix unsafe automobiles according to the U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Pursuant to the court’s order, Fiat Chrysler’s civil penalties totaled roughly $105 million. Until the order was entered, the largest NHTSA fine assessed belonged to Honda, doled out a few months earlier, in the amount of $70 million.

Now, another major car manufacturer is finding itself in hot water over criminal charges. In a recent press release, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it is pursuing criminal charges against General Motors (GM), alleging that the Detroit-based manufacturer concealed a potentially deadly safety defect from NHTSA beginning in the spring of 2012 and continuing through February 2015. The DOJ also claims that, as a result of the deceptive act, consumers were misled regarding the purported safety of some of GM’s vehicles.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Clarifies Liability for Slip and Fall Cases in Commercial Premises

October 14, 2015 | by John S. Moffa

Earlier this year, a Massachusetts Court of Appeal issued an opinion providing clarification for the State’s premises liability law. The court’s ruling can be viewed as a win for plaintiffs who suffer injuries as the result of unsafe conditions on a commercial property.

Back in 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in the state, decided Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 448 Mass. 780 (2007), in which the court used a rule known as the “mode of operation” doctrine to determine whether a plaintiff could recover against a storeowner for negligence in a premises liability case. This doctrine was more permissive in allowing plaintiffs to recover compensation.