Accident Lawyer - Marcotte Law Firm

What Happens in a No-Fault Car Accident?

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 19:18:18 GMT

It is an unfortunate truth that car accidents are a common occurrence in this country. When more than one vehicle is involved, establishing fault is crucial to an insurance claim, as well as any potential lawsuit. This makes sense; if it is your fault, you or your insurance company should bear the brunt of any incurred expenses by the other party. However, a minority number of states are what is known as “no-fault states,” and Massachusetts is one of them. So what does this mean? Let’s begin with what it does not mean. Being in a “no-fault” state does not mean you can run a red light, crash into someone’s car, and not be responsible. When a car accident occurs, someone is still “at fault.” Rather, the primary difference between fault and no-fault states involves car insurance requirements. No-Fault states provide certain types of insurance to people in almost ayn type of accident, no matter whose fault it was. As you are likely aware, Massachusetts requires every registered car to purchase insurance in four (4) parts.

Bodily Injury to Others: Provides limited coverage for you when other people are injured in an accident. This is very limited coverage and does not cover many types of accidents and injuries. Coverage is also limited to $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. You cannot purchase higher limits.
Bodily Injury Caused by an Uninsured Car: Provides coverage if you’re injured by a car that does not have insurance. This can also cover hit & run accidents.
Property Damage: Pays up to $5,000.00 of coverage for any damage you cause to someone else’s car or property. You are allowed to purchase higher limits.
Personal Injury Protection: Pays up to $8,000 for the medical expenses or lost wages of anyone injured while in your car. It will also pay for any pedestiran or bicyclist struck by your car, as well as for injuries you receive when involved in a car that does not have PIP Coverage.

There are additional supplemental coverages that are not required, but are recommended. Please refer to our prior post for a more in depth discussion. However, one optional coverage that is pertinent is for Med Pay coverage. This is similar to Personal Injury Protection coverage in that it will pay for certain medical expenses, regardless of whose fault a car accident is. Where the “no-fault” differs from the “fault” is in Personal Injury Protection insurance (item #4 above and hereinafter, “PIP”), and Med Pay coverage. No-fault states require you to purchase PIP in addition to basic liability insurance. PIP typically pays for your medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. This is where the “no-fault” term comes in. Even if you are at fault for the accident, PIP will cover the expenses. The goal of no-fault insurance is twofold: 1) save time and money and 2) to reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit. Insurance companies will drag their feet and paying claims and lawsuits can take time to resolve. In no-fault states, PIP pays out right away, regardless of fault. As you may have guessed, if people get paid for their expenses right away, the need for a lawsuit may be reduced. However, this does not preclude you from filing a lawsuit if the circumstances warrant it. In order to succeed in a lawsuit, you need to establish the other driver was negligent. You will also need to have at least $2,000.00 in medical bills to pursue a claim for pain and suffering. Further, as our ardent readers are aware, Massachusetts is a comparative negligence state, which means your fault in the collision will be weighed and may offset any potential payout. As always, it is a good idea to speak with an experienced attorney who can help you develop your claim and advice you on the best coursing moving forward.

If you or a loved one has been injued in a car accident and has questions about the various types of No Fault Insurance that are available, call the experienced car accident lawyers at Marcotte Law Firm for a free, no obligation consultation.

Premise Liability & Video Surveillance

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:16:20 GMT

We have previously discussed a number of issues surrounding premises liability. For example, in the context of snow and ice, classifications of individuals on your property, and doctrines like attractive nuisance. We are now going to dive into some evidentiary issues that may arise in your claim, specifically in the context of surveillance video in a commercial setting. As the technology becomes cheaper and more readily available, more and more commercial property owners are investing in video surveillance systems. This is for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, it helps with loss prevention (stealing). But, it also is a way for property owners or renters to have an eye in the sky to be able to record certain events. This includes many injuries. This is why we always suggest you assume that whenever you are in a commercial property, you are being watched. As you can imagine, the proliferation of surveillance cameras has significantly impacted premise liability law. More cameras means more evidence in many claims. Cameras are able to see someone when they fall. They also are able to create a timeline as to a person’s movements, or even look to see what caused the hazard that the person tripped on. As surveillance video evidence becomes the norm, so too do a host of related legal issues. Specially, issues of preservations of evidence including what is known as “spoliation.” Spoliation (not spoil-ation!) is defined as “the destruction or alteration of evidence resulting from a party’s failure to preserve evidence relevant to a litigation or investigation.” While this could refer to a deliberate and intentional destruction of video evidence, spoliation most commonly occurs when a defendant fails to preserve video evidence that they had notice may relate to a possible premise injury. This is why it is in the interest of any business to have written guidelines establishing the policy for retaining potentially relevant surveillance video. Upgrades in technology have digitized most surveillance video equipment; however, some businesses may still rely on video cassettes or discs. Regardless of the technology involved, there is still a finite ability to store video indefinitely, even digitally. Most systems will have an automated deletion program that will delete or overwrite videos after a given time. In the old days, a surveillance tape would be re-used, and the old footage destroyed. Now, though cloud storage is seemingly limitless, the cost to keep unnecessary surveilance footage is not in many companys’ budget. While the law does not require you to incur additional expenses to preserve all video indefinitely, a business is required to preserve surveillance video in anticipation of litigation. In Massachusetts, the duty to preserve evidence is straightforward. The duty arises when a reasonable person knows or should know that litigation is possible and that the evidence might be relevant. Commercial premises often receive notice of an accident, e.g., an ambulance arrives at their property, so claiming lack of notice will usually be difficult to prove. In order to show spoliation under Massachusetts law, you must show either a negligent or intentional destruction of evidence. Remedies are based on the degree of misconduct of the defendant. The most common remedy for spoliation is a jury instruction from the judge allowing jurors to draw an adverse inference, i.e., you can assume the defendant is hiding something harmful to their case, from the destruction of the evidence. The need to preserve potential evidence highlights the need to work with an attorney on any potential slip and fall claim. An experienced attorney will contact the defendant business to remind them of their duty to preserve any video surveillance evidence from the time of the claim. Not only does this remind the business of their duty, it also lays the foundation for any future spoliation issues, should they arise.

If you’ve been injured on someone’s else’s property, its important that you find a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. The sooner you find a lawyer, the sooner he or she can send out a letter that asks that they preserve all videos. This will give you a much better chance of the video not magically disappearing.

Sovereign Immunity and the Mass Tort Claims Act

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 11 Oct 2021 18:47:04 GMT

In a previous post discussing Premises Liability, we briefly noted two (2) relevant legal doctrines – Attractive Nuisance and Sovereign Immunity. We recently discussed the Attractive Nuisance doctrine, so today will be focusing on the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and its codification under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. As discussed in previous posts, if you were injured in a car accident or on the property of another, you likely have a cause of action against those persons. However, what happens when the driver of that other car is a government employee or the property you were injured on is a government building? In Massachusetts, it is much harder to file a lawsuit and win when the other party is the government. As you may have guessed, this is due to the aforementioned principle known as Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign Immunity is a very old legal premise that basically states that the sovereign, i.e., the government in this country, cannot be sued even if an individual is harmed by the acts, decisions, or inactions of the government. It dates back to English law, where people were unable to sue the king. Even in this brief explanation, you can see that this is an exceptionally broad principle that absolves the government of virtually all tortious acts. However, there are limits to Sovereign Immunity. In an effort to reduce the scope of Sovereign Immunity and provide certain plaintiffs with some recourse for their injuries, Massachusetts has passed the Tort Claims Act (hereinafter, “MTCA”). While the government is still afforded a great deal of protection – protections that exceed those afforded to a normal property or business owner – the MTCA does provide an avenue for a harmed individual to sue the government through negligence claims. Section 2 of the MTCA states that “public employees shall be liable for injury or loss of property or personal death” caused by negligence, wrongful acts, or omissions. The MTCA also lays out specific situations where a negligence lawsuit is allowed. Examples of these situations include negligently operating a government vehicle (e.g., a USPS truck or public bus); defects or hazards in public buildings; medical malpractice by healthcare providers at a state-run facility; and police brutality or negligence. The MTCA caps damages at $100,000; however, all claims for serious bodily injury against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority are not subject to this limitation. There are also specific requirements in filing a lawsuit. The plaintiff must first present the claim to the employer in charge of the defendant employee. The claim must be presented within two (2) years of the date of the injury. The plaintiff cannot file the claim with the Court of Claims until the employer has accepted or rejected it. The employer must do this within six (6) months of receiving it. If the claim is rejected, the plaintiff may then file the claim with the Court of Claims. The statute of limitations for filing an MTCA claim with the Court of Claims is six (6) months. As you can see, filing a claim under the MTCA can be a complicated matter, one that could take over a year to unfold. Even if you feel you have a clear cut case, it is in your interest to consult with an experienced attorney on how to locate the employer in charge of the defendant employee and how to file with the Court of Claims if that claim is rejected by the employer.

If you’ve been injured by a government employee, it’s important to act fast. There are many limitations on these cases, and they need to be given attention right away. Call the Personal Injury lawyers at Marcotte Law Firm for a free, no obligation consultation.

Swimming Pools, Kids, and Attractive Nuisance

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:46:38 GMT

In a previous post discussing Premises Liability, we briefly noted two (2) relevant legal doctrines – Attractive Nuisance and Sovereign Immunity. We will address Sovereign Immunity and the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act in a subsequent post, but today we want to discuss the other doctrine: Attractive Nuisance. Premises Liability, property owners have a duty of reasonable care to anyone entering their property. The highest duty of care is owed to those who have express or implied permission to be on that property, known as invitees and licensees under Massachusetts law. An example of this are patrons of a restaurant or supermarket. Trespassers are owed the lowest duty, i.e., people who enter a property without permission. A trespasser cannot sue a property owner for injuries suffered on that property except under “unusually dangerous” situations. There is; however, one group of potential trespassers to whom property owners still owe the duty of reasonable care: young children. This is where the doctrine of attractive nuisance applies. Under this doctrine, property owners can still be found liable for injuries caused to a young child, even one who is trespassing. Massachusetts defines an attractive nuisance as an artificial condition on the property owner’s land that can “attract” children to trespass onto the land and lead to injury. This means that a natural pond, rock face, or other natural condition on the property is not subject to the laws of attractive nuisance. According to the law, a child who trespasses onto another’s property because of an attractive nuisance and who is injured by that attractive nuisance can be compensated for his or her injuries if:

The place where the nuisance exists is a place where the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass;
The nuisance is one which the landowner knows or should have reason to know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to a child;
Children, because of their youth, are unlikely to realize the danger they are in by coming near the nuisance;
The burden on the landowner of eliminating or mitigating the danger is slight compared to the danger presented to children; and
The landowner fails to take reasonable measures to eliminate the danger or protect children.

If the trespassing child is injured, then the property owner may be found liable if they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from entering the property. Stated another way, if there is something on a property that may be inherently attractive to a child and the child is injured by that object, a property owner may be liable because a child cannot fully understand the risks posed by that object. Swimming pools are the classic example of an artificial condition that may attract a trespassing child; however, certainly not the only one. A quick google search reveals other common examples, e.g., trampolines, tree houses, machinery, etc., cited throughout case law. Using the example of a swimming pool, putting up a fence shows – legally speaking in terms of reasonable care – that the property owner understood the risk a pool may pose to a child and took reasonable care to mitigate that risk. This is why many local municipalities require a fence around a pool. While the law is designed to protect young children, the age of that child is not cut and dry. For example, the landowner’s duties may vary as it relates to a three-year old versus a thirteen-year old. That is to say a court may find an older child would have a greater appreciation of the risks. These claims can be difficult to evaluate and it certainly makes sense to speak with an experienced attorney.

If your child was injured due to an attractive nuisance on another person’s property, call the experienced premises liability lawyers at Marcotte Law Firm for a free, no obligation consultation.

How Do I Document an Injury?

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 02 Aug 2021 13:22:34 GMT

How Do I Document My Car Accident Injuries? When you’ve been injured in a car accident, your life can be turned upside down. In addition to dealing with the normal hurdles that life brings, you also have to deal with an injury. Now you’re also having to go to doctor’s appointments and therapy visits while also having to deal with the fact that your normal activities now aren’t as easy to do. How an injury affects your life on a day to day basis is what is generally known as pain and suffering. While many rightly assume that it’s their Personal Injury Lawyer’s job to prove your pain and suffering, it’s actually a joint venture. Like a basketball player without shoes, a personal injury attorney can only do so much to prove injuries if he or she doesn’t have a client who properly documents those injuries. Making Medical Appointments The first step in documenting an injury is scheduling or seeing a doctor. An insurance company (or jury if you go to trial) works under the assumption that if a person doesn’t go to the doctor, that person’s injuries cannot be that bad. While this isn’t always fair, it’s how the world works. Some people are hypochondriacs who see doctors for a small cut on their finger. Others only go to the doctor if their leg is falling off. While no one should go to the doctor if they don’t need to, being a superhero and assuming your injury will get better on its own might hurt your case. Following Up Whenever we see doctors, we’re likely to get a recommendation for some sort of treatment. Whether it’s a referral for Physical Therapy or an order for an MRI, it’s important that you follow doctor’s orders. This is true even if you don’t necessarily agree with your doctor. For example, many people immediately want an MRI of their injury. Unfortunately, many doctors like to try physical therapy before ordering any pricey scans. Even if the therapy doesn’t work, having gone through the process helps show that your injury is bad enough to warrant treatment and it’s serious enough to require additional workups. Second Opinions However, that’s not to say that a second opinion might not be the way to go. Many of our clients get second opinions for a variety of reasons. For example, if a client gets a recommendation for surgery, getting a second opinion about whether that surgery is really necessary can be a good idea. On the other hand, some doctors tell our clients that they’ve reached a medical end result and nothing more can be done. A second opinion can bring a fresh set of eyes and other options that could save you from lifelong problems. Medical Journal Some personal injury attorneys will instruct their clients to keep a journal to document these injuries. We don’t necessarily suggest that to our clients, but we do get them from time to time. What clients should remember is that journals should be used as a way to refresh your memory about your events. It’s not necessary to write down every single thing that happened to you, but rather jot down a few bullet points. For example, if you’ve having back problems that prevent you from bending over, you might jot down a couple things that you can’t do because of your injury, such as tying your shoes or taking out the trash. Experienced Lowell Personal Injury Lawyers At Marcotte Law Firm, our Lowell Personal Injury lawyers have decades of experience representing injured individuals. If you’ve been hurt, call us for a free, no obligation consultation.

Snow and Ice Injuries

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:32 GMT

In Part 1, we discussed the duty owed by property owners in terms of snow and ice removal. In this post, we will discuss what happens if you are injured after slipping on ice or snow. It is important to know what steps are available to you and what, if any, fault you may have in the matter. As noted in the previous post, it used to be much harder to recover damages from a slip and fall caused by snow and ice. A 2010 Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) case (Papadopoulos v. Target Corp) overturned an over-a-century-old law regarding the accumulation of snow. The duty placed on property owners was raised and it became easier to prove negligence. However, just because it became “easier,” does not mean collecting damages will be easy. There are still multiple factors at play. All slip and fall cases fall under a class of personal injury claims requiring you to prove negligence. You must establish a duty, a failure to meet that duty, injuries, and that the breach of duty caused those injuries. In a case of snow and ice-induced slip and fall case, the duty owed is by the landowner and he or she owes you “reasonable care” for a safe walking environment, that is, free of ice and snow. Further, you must suffer a significant injury, for example, sprained or broken bones or traumatic brain injury from hitting your head. Finally, you need to establish that the ice was the cause of your slip and fall. There are some additional nuances unique to ice and snow slip and falls that are important to know. Like most personal injury claims, slip and fall accidents have a three-year statute of limitations. However, for snow and ice slip and fall cases, the injured person must notify the property owner within thirty (30) days of their fall that you were injured on their property. This requirement serves two (2) functions. One is to give the property owner notice of a possible pending lawsuit. Next, it protects you from a property owner claiming they were not aware anyone was ever injured on their property. If you fail to provide this timely notice, you will be unable to file a claim. Another potential hurdle in your claim is the legal principle known as “comparative negligence.” Comparative negligence assesses a percentage of fault on both the injured party and the property owner, that is, you both share the blame. While the property owner is responsible for removing ice and snow, when walking on a slippery surface, you too have a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid getting hurt. By way of example, assume you break your leg after slipping on ice in front of a restaurant. Lets further assume that the restaurant owners failed to “reasonably” de-ice the sidewalk. However, it was shown that you were walking and texting on your phone when you fell. While it is the restaurant owners’ “fault” for not removing the ice, the fact that you were not paying attention to where you were going can place some of the blame on you. In this instance, a court could find that while the restaurant owners’ were at fault, so too were you. Under comparative negligence, they can assign a percentage to you (you are 25% at fault) and the restaurant owners (they were 75% at fault). This means any damages you receive will be reduced by 25% (your percentage of fault). This is important to know, because under comparative negligence laws in Massachusetts, the plaintiff can only be compensated if their share of the blame is less than 51%. (A 2020 SJC case dealt, in part, with the issue of comparative negligence. You can read the full description of this case in a prior blog post here). As if this did not all seem daunting enough, oftentimes, and especially when businesses are responsible, insurance companies get involved. These cases are very fact-specific, and what constitutes “reasonable” snow and ice removal or treatment is often at issue. Therefore, insurance companies try to place blame on the accident victim for the fall. By now, it should be clear that there are a lot of moving parts when it comes to establishing your slip and fall case. It is in your best interest to work with an experienced personal injury attorney to help you navigate through this process.

Snow & Ice – Landowner Responsibilities

Marcotte Law Firm LLC — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 20:51:49 GMT

Winter in New England, a right of passage we all endure every year. No one can claim to be a real New Englander without going through a handful of winters full of blizzards, wind, and freezing temperatures. Cleaning off your car, shoveling the sidewalks and stairs, and salting or sanding the ice are all tenets of our yearly winter ritual. While many of us are used to the cold, snow, and ice, it is important to know what happens when those conditions result in an injury. In the first part of a two-part series, we will discuss what duty you owe as a property owner to others entering your property and what happens in the event someone is injured as a result of a fall on snow or ice. Under Massachusetts law, all property owners (commercial and residential) and landlords are legally responsible for snow and ice removal from their property. While each town and city has its own specific codes (and we encourage you to take a look at your city or town’s requirements), it is important to know the state law establishing this minimum. This means that any publicly-accessible areas, e.g., sidewalks or walkways, driveways, parking lots, etc., must be free of snow and “de-iced.” This is a relatively new law, coming into effect on the heels of a 2010 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruling that overturned 125 years of precedent of unnatural vs. natural snow accumulation. The arcane distinction aside, the takeaway is that the SJC prioritized safety of guests and visitors. (That case was Papadopoulos v. Target Corp, which dragged snow and ice law into the 21st century. It got rid of the rule that a “natural accumulation” of snow means that a property owner wasn’t responsible for someone’s injury.). Oftentimes, property owners, usually commercial or landlords, elect to hire a 3rd party to perform the snow and ice removal. In these instances, if you are the property owner, it is important to know two (2) things. First, simply hiring a 3rd party to remove snow and ice does not necessarily absolve you of any liability. Said another way, if someone slips on ice and injures themselves, both you, the property owner, and the 3rd party may be liable for that injury. This brings us to our second thing to know. When hiring a 3rd party, it is important to have a contract that lays out the responsibilities of both parties. For example, many of these contracts call for snow plowing, salting, and sanding, only if 2 inches or more of snow are expected. However, even a coating of snow can develop into treacherous conditions. As a property owner, that’s still your responsibility.

At the same time, many of these contracts have clauses that state who will not only pay for injuries that occur, but also for the cost of the defense. Called a “tender,” we often send letters to property owners only for it to be forwarded to an insurance company for the landscaping company responsible for plowing and sanding.

Another significant SJC case was handed down in 2020 regarding what is known as the “Warranty of Habitability.” (You can read the full description of this case in a prior blog post here). In summary, the SJC found that an ice or snow-induced slip and fall injury did not invoke the warranty of habitability, but rather that of negligence. This is significant because under negligence, the injured person may bear some of the fault, thereby reducing damages owed. If someone is injured due to slipping on snow or ice on your property, they have to provide you with notice of their injury within thirty (30) days. If they fail to provide you with this notice, they will be unable to file a claim against you if you are prejudiced, which is a high hurdle to jump over. If you’ve fallen on snow or ice, it’s important to seek out an experienced lawyer as soon as possible.