Boston Premises Liability Lawyers

Premises Liability Lawyers in Boston Working Tirelessly on the Behalf Clients Injured On The Property Of Another

See Premises Liability Settlements and Case Results in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, property owners have a legal obligation to maintain their properties and keep them safe and hazard-free for guests, visitors, and residents. The definition of property owners can include landlords, business owners, retail store owners, restaurant owners, and any other owners of either public or private property.

Because of this responsibility, the landowner is held accountable for any failures to meet the duty of care for their property, as well as any injury or death as a result of this, especially if they had prior knowledge of the problem. If you have been injured due to an owner’s failure to fulfill his legal requirements, contact a skilled premises liability lawyer at our law office today by phone or email.

Below are some FAQs about slip and fall lawsuits in Boston, Massachusetts:

• What Are Some Of The Common Slip and Fall Cases?
• How Can Modified Comparative Negligence Laws Affect Premises Liability Cases?
• How Much Does A Premises Liability Attorney In MA Charge To File A Lawsuit?
• How Can A Team Of Attorneys Help With Your Premises Liability Case?

What Are Some Of The Common Slip and Fall Cases in Boston, Massachusetts?

Defective, or negligently maintained premises, are among the most common sources of serious personal injuries and wrongful death. The range of defective conditions which give rise to “premises liability” claims are extremely broad.

It is insane the level of personal commitment and intelligence that Eric Parker brings to a case. His medical knowledge is uncanny for a lawyer and it serves him and his clients very well.

– Mike Corso

Slip and fall is the most common type of premises liability case and occurs when someone injures himself or herself falling on the property. Falls often occur due to spills that haven’t been properly cleaned off of the floor, a hazardous hole that has been left on the grounds, a parking lot that is not lit properly, or unsafe structures, such as staircases and escalators.

Other examples of the types of defective premises cases associated with serious injury or death include defective building construction, inadequate building maintenance, unfilled holes in land, unapparent obstructions, lack of conformity with State building code regulations, such as the Massachusetts Building Code, including defects in stairway design or maintenance, lack of required railings, inadequate lighting, defective flooring, defective electrical wiring, defective plumbing, injuries caused by broken glass, injuries caused by defective heating systems (such as carbon monoxide poisoning and gas leaks), defective building repairs, deck failures caused by rot or other eroding building materials, egress-related issues and other building and land-related hazards.

Property owners may also be held responsible if visitors are injured due to negligent security. For example, if the security officers at the property fail to protect a visitor from assault, the property owner may be liable.

How Can Modified Comparative Negligence Laws in MA Affect Premises Liability Cases?

Due to Massachusetts modified comparative negligence laws, victims may still recover compensation in a premises liability lawsuit even if they are partly to blame for their injuries. If both the property owner and the victim contributed to the cause of the accident, each party will be assigned a percentage of fault.

For example, it may be determined that the victim was 30% responsible for the accident and the property owner was 70% responsible. In this case, the victim’s compensation would be reduced by 30% to account for her share of the fault.

Sometimes, the victim will not be able to recover any compensation because of the role she played in causing the accident. This occurs when the victim is found to be more than 50% liable for the accident. In this situation, the victim would not be awarded any compensation because she is mainly at fault for her own injuries.

The defendant in a premises liability case may try to shift the blame onto you so he does not have to pay as much or anything at all. Let an attorney review your case and help you prove that the defendant was liable for your injuries.

How Much Does A Premises Liability Attorney In MA Charge To File A Lawsuit?

If you would like to file a premises liability claim, you may be wondering how much you will have to spend on an attorney. Fortunately, personal injury victims do not have to worry about paying legal fees as they recover from their injuries. This is because personal injury attorneys typically work on a contingency fee basis instead of charging clients flat or hourly fees.

Therefore, you will not have to pay any legal fees unless your attorney is able to recover compensation for your injuries. If your attorney is unable to reach a settlement offer or win a verdict on your behalf, you won’t have to pay.

How Can A Team Of Attorneys Help With Your Premises Liability Case in Massachusetts?

If you believe you have a premises liability case, it is important to speak with an experienced attorney as soon as possible. The most important step in proving your case is showing that there was a hazardous condition on the premises that caused your injury, and that, furthermore, the property owner was aware of the problem and did not take the appropriate actions to prevent possible injuries quickly enough or at all.

Parker Scheer LLP premises liability lawyers have the expertise necessary to get you the best possible results and the compensation you deserve. The damages that can be recovered in a defective premises case usually include medical expenses, lost and future lost wages, pain and suffering, and the cost of rehabilitation.

Seek Legal Representation From One of the Best Premises Liability Law Firms in Boston, MA

Parker Scheer LLP has represented scores of clients injured or killed as a result of defective premises or a slip and fall. For more information about your potential case, or to speak directly to one of our premises liability lawyers, please contact us here, or telephone our offices toll-free, seven days a week, at (617) 886-0500.

There is never a charge for an initial consultation. During the free consultation, we will answer any legal questions that you may have and provide you with honest legal advice.

Our premises liability lawyers have years of experience representing the injured. Some of our firm’s other practice areas include car accidents, dog bites, motorcycle accidents, and dangerous products. We serve clients in Massachusetts including Cambridge, Boston, Chelmsford, and throughout Suffolk County and Middlesex County.

Premises Liability Settlements and Case Results in Massachusetts

Personal Injury Case Results – Slip and Fall Accidents

Broken Glass Shelf, Facial Laceration

CASE SUMMARY:

A Boston premises liability lawyer from our law firm took on a case where the plaintiff, a 4-year-old boy, was visiting the defendant’s retail store in Quincy along with his mother.

While walking with his mother through the store, the minor plaintiff rounded a corner where a low-level counter was positioned. The minor’s face rubbed against the edge of the counter, which he did not realize was a broken glass shelf. As a result, the minor plaintiff suffered a laceration on his cheek. The minor plaintiff received immediate medical attention following the accident, where he was told that he would need sutures to close the wound. The treatment was successful, however, the minor plaintiff was left with a permanent hairline scar as a result of the laceration.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant’s retail store to recover compensation for his injuries. In the claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent because it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for its customers. The defendant did not accept fault for the accident and contended that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to prove how long the glass shelf had been broken prior to the incident. The plaintiff was prepared to offer evidence that the glass shelf had been broken for some time prior to the incident. Due to the length of time the glass shelf was broken, the plaintiff argued that the property owner should have been aware of the hazardous condition and repaired it before it led to injuries. A store employee had testified to the fact that the glass shelf had been broken for a significant period of time before the plaintiff was injured.

The plaintiff’s counsel consulted with a local plastic surgeon to discuss the issue of the scar on the minor plaintiff’s face. The surgeon was able to provide an estimated cost for the procedures needed to treat the scar. Although the remaining scar had lightened considerably since the time of the incident, it was still visible. In fact, the minor plaintiff was insecure about his scar and continued to question his mother about its existence and what could be done to get rid of it.

Following settlement discussions between the plaintiff’s counsel and the defendant’s insurer, the claim was settled outside of the courtroom. The plaintiff was awarded $37,500 in addition to a structure providing $160,000.

CRUSH INJURY TO FOOT

CASE SUMMARY:

The plaintiff, a 47-year-old husband, and father of two young children was a lawful visitor at the defendant’s warehouse, waiting to be interviewed for a position with the defendant’s delivery company. While waiting for the interviewer to arrive, the plaintiff noticed a worker experiencing difficulty with a forklift and walked over to offer assistance. As the plaintiff approached the forklift, the worker suddenly struck the upper portion of the forklift with a tool – ostensibly to free the frozen lift – causing the forks to free-fall directly onto the plaintiff’s right foot.

The plaintiff was transported by ambulance to a local hospital and was diagnosed with a crush injury to his right foot. Over the next several weeks, the plaintiff began to exhibit symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (“RSD”) and thereafter began an extensive treatment course to alleviate the severe and debilitating pain associated with RSD. Included among the treatments were narcotic pain medications; several “sympathetic chain blocks;” and twice attempted implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Despite these measures, all efforts proved unsuccessful in controlling the plaintiff’s pain. As a result of the failed treatments, the plaintiff was declared permanently disabled by the Social Security Administration. The plaintiff’s wife and minor children also asserted claims for loss of consortium.

The insurance company providing general liability coverage to the defendant initially denied the plaintiffs’ claims, alleging that the plaintiff had already accepted an offer of employment at the time the injury occurred, and as an “employee” he was therefore precluded from asserting a tort claim against his employer based on the “exclusivity provision” of the Massachusetts Workers Compensation Act (G.L. c. 152). In refuting the carrier’s assertion of employment, the plaintiff demonstrated that at the time of his injury, he had not yet been interviewed for any position with the defendant’s company; had not been offered any position with the defendant; and had not received any terms of employment, including salary, benefits, and other standard employment information.

Coincidentally, the very same insurer also provided worker’s compensation coverage to the defendant. Following an investigation conducted by the worker’s compensation adjuster assigned to the claim, the worker’s compensation adjuster determined that the plaintiff was not an employee at the time of the subject incident, and noted his findings in the comp file.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced civil proceedings against the defendant company for personal injuries and loss of consortium predicted on negligence. The defendant’s insurer (who had previously determined that the plaintiff was not an employee at the time of the incident) nevertheless continued to press the “exclusivity provision” of G.L. c. 152 as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs’ tort action.

Throughout the course of discovery, the plaintiffs obtained an order compelling the defendant’s worker’s compensation carrier to turn over the complete comp file to plaintiffs’ counsel. These documents clearly established efforts on the part of the carrier to press the “exclusivity” defense, despite overwhelming evidence that the plaintiff had not yet been hired at the time the injury occurred. Once in possession of these documents, the plaintiff delivered a “demand letter” to the defendant’s insurer seeking additional relief, predicated on numerous violations of G.L. c. 176D and 93A.

During the course of discovery, the defendant refused or otherwise failed to produce documents that had been the subject of a previously allowed “motion to compel production,” resulting in the entry of default judgment against the defendant. Following several unsuccessful attempts by the defendant to remove the default judgment, including an unsuccessful petition for interlocutory review by a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the default stood, and the Court scheduled an assessment of damages hearing.

Approximately one month prior to the hearing on assessment of damages, the defendant’s carrier tendered its full general liability limits of $1 million. Contemporaneously, the defendant’s insurer paid an additional $250,000 to resolve the plaintiffs’ claim for violations of G.L. c. 176D and 93A.

DEFECTIVE ENTRANCE DOOR

CASE SUMMARY:

Our Boston premises liability lawyers handled a case where the plaintiff, a 52-year-old, United States Postal Service letter carrier, visited the defendant’s 25 room home, located on High Street in Dedham, Massachusetts, to deliver mail. As the plaintiff attempted to open the large wood and glass storm door which protected the main entry door and mail slot, the door suddenly separated from the door frame and fell backward toward the plaintiff. As the 80-pound door fell, the plaintiff attempted to deflect the door away from his body and suffered a herniation of his L4-5 disc.

Through discovery, the plaintiff learned that just prior to the plaintiff’s arrival at the defendant’s home, a handyman had been engaged in the process of installing the storm door, as he had many times in prior years, in anticipation of winter. The handyman had determined that the existing wood screws were too short to adequately support the heavy storm door and left the door, partially secured, to locate longer wood screws. It was during the handyman’s absence that the plaintiff visited the plaintiff’s home and attempted to open the partially secured front door.

The case was complicated by defense arguments that the handyman responsible for leaving the front door in a partially secured condition, was not an employee for whom the defendant homeowner was legally responsible. Rather, the defense argued, the handyman (who was uninsured and not a party to the action) was an independent contractor for whom the defendant homeowner was not legally liable under the theory of vicarious liability.

Over the course of the two-day arbitration, the plaintiff offered considerable evidence that that the handyman had a long-term working relationship with the defendant homeowner, and had regularly performed a wide range of unskilled services, including painting, landscaping, odd jobs, errands, and other home-related services, identical in scope to those performed by the defendant’s prior live-in house staff.

The plaintiff argued that according to the Restatement of Agency, and controlling Massachusetts case law, whether the handyman was an employee or an independent contractor turned on whether the defendant homeowner had the right to control the work performed by the handyman. The plaintiff successfully established the defendant’s right to control by demonstrating that the defendant, an elderly widow who lived alone in a 25 room, 10,000 square foot home, utilized the services of the handyman on virtually a daily basis. The plaintiff demonstrated that the handyman regularly used tools and equipment belonging to the homeowner in the performance of his tasks; was paid by the homeowner on an hourly basis; took direction from the homeowner with respect to certain delegated tasks, and otherwise qualified as an employee under the language of the Restatement of Agency and leading Massachusetts case law.

The plaintiff argued that as a direct and proximate result of the injuries he sustained an L4-5 disc herniation and was a candidate for laminectomy (which had not been performed as of the date of the arbitration). The plaintiff further argued that as a result of his injuries he was unable to perform his work-related duties as a letter carrier, and opted instead for early retirement, resulting in a diminution in earning capacity. The plaintiff’s incident-related medical expenses totaled approximately $30,000.

HOTEL SLIP AND FALL CASE: DEFECTIVE STAIRWAY RAILING

CASE SUMMARY:

The plaintiff and her husband were guests of the defendant’s newly opened hotel. After checking into their room, the plaintiff and her husband prepared for their 6:00 p.m. dinner reservation at the hotel’s main floor restaurant. Following dinner, the plaintiff excused herself and proceeded to the ladies’ room located on the lower level of the restaurant. After exiting the ladies’ room, the plaintiff proceeded to the stairway leading back to the main floor of the restaurant intending to return to her table. As she began to ascend the stairway, the plaintiff’s foot slipped on the polished stone stairway, causing her to lose her balance. As the plaintiff began to fall, she attempted to reach out for a handrail to arrest her fall, but she was unable to grasp on to the large ornamental handrail due to the excessive diameter of the ornamental hand railing.

After coming to rest at the base of the staircase, the plaintiff immediately experienced severe pain in her head, face, and left arm.

Evaluation by Brigham and Women’s emergency room physicians revealed a displaced intra-articular fracture of the plaintiff’s left distal radius; a fracture of the plaintiff’s nasal bone left sinus and a fracture of her left orbital socket. The plaintiff underwent open reduction with internal and external fixation and incurred medical bills totaling $6,234.

Plaintiff’s liability case was predicated on deficiencies in the ornamental hand railing as designed, specified, and installed adjacent to the stairway upon which the plaintiff was injured.

According to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR 1022.2.5, all stairway handrails shall have a circular cross-section with an outside diameter of at least 1 inch (32 mm) and not greater than two inches (51 mm). Measurements taken of the subject ornamental railway revealed an outside diameter a few times greater than the maximum permitted outside diameter. The plaintiff was prepared to offer evidence at trial that the hotel’s owner, architect, and builder, violated the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, which rendered the subject ornamental hand railing useless when relied upon by the plaintiff to prevent her fall.

The plaintiff reached a settlement with the hotel’s owner and general contractor following one day of mediation. Claims against the hotel’s architect are the subject of continuing litigation.

FALL IN PRODUCE MARKET, FRACTURED HIP

CASE SUMMARY:

The plaintiff entered the defendant’s grocery store as a customer looking to purchase produce. While walking toward the checkout area, the plaintiff’s foot made contact with several crushed grapes on the floor. She was caught off guard by the grapes and unable to prevent herself from falling to the ground. While lying on the floor, the plaintiff made another observation. She noticed that the floor surrounding the crushed grapes that she tripped on had become extremely slick due to other crushed grapes. The plaintiff also noted that the grocery store had not placed a mat or any other type of slip-resistant protection in the area to protect customers from this safety hazard.

The store manager immediately came to the assistance of the plaintiff and helped her move to a chair. Then, the store manager called for an ambulance on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff experienced severe pain in her left hip, and after the emergency medical personnel stabilized the plaintiff, she was transported to Whidden Memorial Hospital for medical treatment.

The following day, the plaintiff was told she needed to replace her left hip as a result of the fall. She agreed to the procedure and underwent a total replacement of her left hip that day.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the grocery store to recover compensation for her injuries. The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove reasonable notice as to the existence of the grapes. This means the defense did not believe the plaintiff had evidence to prove that the grapes had been on the floor long enough for the store manager or another employee to notice them. The plaintiff’s counsel did not agree with this conclusion. Instead, the plaintiff countered that the sheer proximity of the grapes to the grocery’s check-out area provided ample opportunity by the defendant for an examination of the floor well in advance of the plaintiff’s fall. The plaintiff further argued that the manner in which the grapes were displayed played a significant role in the accumulation of the grapes on the floor. If the store’s employees had been more careful when setting the display, the grapes would not have fallen on the floor and created a safety hazard.

The case was settled during pretrial negotiations between the plaintiff’s counsel and the defendant’s insurer. The plaintiff was awarded $137,500 for her injuries.

SLIP AND FALL, FRACTURED FEMUR

CASE SUMMARY:

The plaintiff, a 70 year-old retired grocery store clerk, visited a BayBank branch office in Burlington. The plaintiff parked his car in the parking lot owned by the bank, located directly next to it.

After exiting from his vehicle, the plaintiff walked around the rear of his car and toward a cement walkway which leads from the parking lot to the entrance of the branch office. The cement walkway was the primary pedestrian path leading from the parking lot to the bank’s main entrance.

In order to reach the cement walkway from his parking space, the plaintiff was forced to walk between two closely parked cars, located directly in front of the cement walkway. As the plaintiff walked between the two cars he suddenly felt his feet slip out from under him, and he fell to the ground fracturing his femur. The cause of his fall was a patch of motor oil located between the two parked cars.

The plaintiff’s case involved claims for personal injury and loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff’s wife, predicated on negligence. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain its parking lot in a reasonably safe condition, resulting in the plaintiff’s serious injury.

The defendant originally claimed that the plaintiff would be unable to meet his burden of proof on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to offer any evidence as to how long the oil had existed on the parking lot before he slipped. The plaintiff countered that evidence as to the age of the oil deposit was irrelevant insofar as the defendant’s negligence was in its failure to properly stripe its lot in compliance with prevailing architectural standards relating to parking lots, to allow the plaintiff to see the oil before stepping in it.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s failure to stripe-off a section of the lot directly in front of the cement walkway promoted parking by bank customers directly upon the pedestrian path, and made it difficult for the plaintiff to observe the ground as he walked. The plaintiff also posited that the defendant knew or should have known that cars would deposit leaking oil upon the pedestrian travel way if allowed to park upon it.

The plaintiff’s counsel obtained plot plans, certified by the town’s building inspector’s office, which demonstrated: (1) that no permits had been obtained prior to the construction of the cement walkway; and (2) that the parking lot in which the plaintiff was injured did not comply with either state or local regulations pertaining to parking lot layout and design. The plaintiff was prepared to offer evidence at trial that the defendant had operated its parking lot without any striping whatsoever, leaving customers free to park anywhere they desired, including directly in front of the only walkway leading to the bank.

The plaintiff’s case was complicated by his advanced age, the existence of a chronic coronary condition, and two total knee replacements existing at the time of injury. The case was mediated by Samuel Hoar of Endispute and settled after one day of mediation.