|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal News November 2007 New Case Law A recent decision by the Supreme Judicial Court has significantly increased a Plaintiff’s chances of success in proving a Defendant liable in a slip and fall lawsuit. The biggest hurdle a Plaintiff faces in a slip and fall case is proving the Defendant had notice of the condition which caused the fall. The court, in a recent slip and fall case in Boston, made it much easier for a Plaintiff to prove the Defendant had notice by overturning the traditional premises liability approach and adopting the new “mode of operation” approach. In that case the Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling due to grapes which had fallen from the grocery store display onto the floor, creating a slippery condition. Under the old approach, the Plaintiff would have had to prove that the Defendant grocery store had notice of the dangerous condition by showing that it had actual knowledge that the grapes were on the floor or that the grapes had been on the floor so long that the Defendant should have been aware of the condition. This old standard made it difficult for the Plaintiff (injured party) to prevail in a personal injury lawsuit. Under the new approach adopted by the court, the Plaintiff has to prove that the Defendant’s chosen “mode of operation” made it reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous condition would occur and that the Defendant failed to take all reasonable precautions necessary to protect the Plaintiff from this dangerous condition. So in the Boston case, the fact that the Defendant places the fruit on display in such a manner that the patrons of the store personally select the fruit, it would be reasonably foreseeable that this mode of operation would result in fruit falling onto the store’s floor where patrons walk. Since fruit pulp/debris presents an obvious risk of injury to patrons when on the floor, the Defendant has notice of such dangerous condition. As such, the Plaintiff was able to easily prove that due to the Defendant’s “mode of operation”, it should have notice of the dangerous condition. This case, which had previously been dismissed in the lower court under the old approach, was sent back to the lower court so the case could be tried under the new approach. Please click here for your free brochure Slip & Fall…Not Just an Accident
|
Negligent Operation A Defendant was convicted by a judge for negligently operating a motor vehicle pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90 §24(2)(a), because he accelerated and spun his wheels so that the back end of his vehicle fishtailed, even though the police officer estimated his speed to be only about 20 mph. There was no erratic driving and there were no pedestrians in the general area.
The court stated that the law requires only that there must be sufficient proof that the defendant might have endangered the lives of the public, not that he actually did. Suspended License Hearings Before the Board of Appeals Recently there were a few issues of somewhat first impression that I have had to resolve in order to secure work licenses for clients before the Registry of Motor Vehicles Board of Appeals. One of the issues was the interlock device which must be installed on your motor vehicle or motor vehicles owned by you. The Registry of Motor Vehicles has mandated regulations that the interlock device must remain on your vehicle throughout the period of suspension for operating under the influence of liquor (2nd offense). This is so even though you have obtained a work license prior to that time. The other issue involved a New York or Connecticut disposition which was reduced from OUI to driving while impaired by alcohol. Our Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, as does the national driver registry, considers that offense to be a conviction for OUI. Accordingly, before a person can obtain a work license or full license, they must make sure he or she can prove that their right to operate has been restored in the foreign state. This is usually done by obtaining your driving record from that state. Additionally, he or she must have complied with Massachusetts requirements if the foreign state did not require a similar program. This must be done before the Registry of Motor Vehicles Board of Appeals will consider a twelve (12) hour license. Secondly, in the case of a first offense, the offender must comply with Massachusetts law which requires enrollment in and completion of a sixteen (16) week driver’s education program. In the case of a second offense, the offender must comply with Massachusetts law which requires admission in and completion of a two (2) week residential program. |
Life Insurance A U.S. magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court sided with a life insurance company when it refused to pay life insurance benefits to the beneficiary of the deceased’s life insurance policy. The insurance company took the position that since the deceased consumed alcohol for two and a half hours before driving his motor vehicle and then caused a collision which resulted in his death, this was not Life Insurance continued from front an accident because under these facts it was likely to happen.
This is another example of how the courts are being influenced by the powerful insurance companies. Unless this case is overturned on appeal, your life insurance policy, after paying all those premiums for all these years, could become worthless, particularly if you are involved in any dangerous hobbies or sports. Having fought against the insurance companies for 32 years, I can assure you that the insurance companies are quite resourceful in coming up with theories to avoid paying valid claims. I will let you know how this case concludes.
|
This odd result was justified by the appeals court because the defendant was operating his vehicle in a shopping center parking lot with “moderate to heavy” vehicle and pedestrian traffic and because the surface of the parking lot had recently been the subject of a large amount of snow. 
What most people do not realize is that you must keep the interlock device on your vehicle for the two-year period following restoration of your full license. The cost of the interlock device with installation is approximately $100.00 to $125.00 plus a $75.00 to $85.00 per month maintenance and monitoring fee. All the more reason to make sure you protect yourself and obtain proper and experienced legal representation with reference for any OUI offense.
