Boston MA Car Accident Attorneys

Choose the Best Massachusetts Car Accident Lawyer to Represent you in Connection with a Serious Accident.

Parker Scheer Provides Expert Legal Representation to Victims of Serious Motor Vehicle Accidents.

See Massachusetts Car Accident Settlements

Car Accident caused by Manufacturing Defects

In some cases, a motor vehicle accident is not caused by an individual operator, but rather by some product defect in the car that led to the accident.  A defect can be a manufacturing defect (where a particular car is defective) or a design defect (where an entire model line is defective).  Figuring out the type of defect involved and whether an injured person would be able to prove that the defect caused the crash can be very complex and require the assistance of engineering experts familiar with the manufacture of motor vehicles.

When investigating the cause of a crash after an accident, it is imperative that all the evidence is preserved, including the car.  While this may seem obvious, in crashes involving serious damage to the vehicle, all too often the property damage claim will be resolved and the insurer will salvage the vehicle.  Once a vehicle – and all the evidence included in it – is gone, it will be nearly impossible to prove that the vehicle was, in fact, defective prior to the crash.  Therefore, if you believe that a defective product caused or contributed to a crash, it is important to retain an attorney immediately so as to ensure that all evidence is preserved and maintained in the proper manner.  Considerations such as where the vehicle is stored, which individuals have access to the vehicle, and what types of testing are done on the vehicle are all important and can have negative consequences if not followed.

While maintaining evidence as status quo is important, it is also important to be able to perform an investigation into the happening of a crash to uncover whether a viable claim exists.  In order to perform some testing while not impacting the integrity of the evidence, the law allows for non-destructive testing to take place.  Non-destructive testing includes taking photographs, measurements, and other testings that will not impact the integrity of the vehicle.  If a lawsuit is filed and destructive testing needs to occur, the parties can usually agree on a testing protocol that sets forth the exact nature of the destructive testing and ensures that all individuals are present during such testing.

In November 2012 alone, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration noted three (3) major product recalls involving product defects of vehicles.  These include the 2012 Toyota FJ Cruiser for faulty Toyota racing development kits, the 2013 Cadillac XTS for faulty head restraints that may not lock, and GM recalled certain 2012 Buick and Chevrolet models for faulty driver’s-side airbags.  A recalled vehicle is not required to bring a product liability case.  In fact, cases brought by injured consumers tend to initiate product recalls by a company.

Car Accident Injury in Massachusetts Common FAQs

Many people who have suffered injuries as a result of a car accident have important questions about obtaining compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. 

What is the first thing I should do after being involved in a car accident in Massachusetts?

If you or someone else is injured in a car accident, contact police or emergency medical personnel immediately. Information about the operators involved in the accident can be obtained after all injured parties are safely in the hands of professionals trained to provide emergency medical care.

As soon as it is safe to do so, you should contact your insurance agent or insurance company representative to report the happening of the accident.

Who will pay my car accident-related medical bills?

In Massachusetts, the first two thousand dollars ($2,000) in medical bills that you incur in connection with a car accident are paid for by the insurance company that insured the car in which you were traveling, at the time of the accident. If you were injured as a pedestrian or bicyclist, the bills are paid by the company insuring the car that injured you. The portion of the motor vehicle insurance policy that pays the first $2,000 in medical bills is called Personal Injury Protection or “P.I.P.”. It is also called “no fault”. If your medical bills exceed $2,000 submit the bills over $2,000 to your health insurance company for payment or reimbursement. If you did not have health insurance at the time of the accident, your bills should be covered under P.I.P. up to a total of $8,000. In some cases, additional medical payment coverage may be available. Your insurance agent or attorney can advise you as to the amount of coverage to which you may be entitled.

Can I recover the value of my lost wages?

If as a result of the car accident you suffer injuries that prevent you from performing your work-related duties, you may be entitled to be reimbursed a portion of your actual lost wages under the applicable P.I.P. policy. Under P.I.P., you may recover up to 75% of your lost wages, provided: (1) you were not paid during your absence from work; and (2) your $8,000 in P.I.P. benefits were not exhausted by the payment of medical bills. Remember that the $8,000 available under P.I.P. includes payment of medical bills and lost wages, unless additional “Medical Payments” coverage is available. In the event you are eligible for partial reimbursement under a disability plan at work, P.I.P. will pay 75% of the difference.

Do I have to reimburse my health insurance company if I recover bodily injury compensation?

If your medical bills exceed $2,000 and your health insurance company pays for medical treatment over the first $2,000 in P.I.P. benefits, your health insurance company may be legally entitled to be reimbursed from any amounts you receive in connection with your bodily injury claim. This right of reimbursement is contractual and is referred to as a “lien”. The rules governing liens involve complicated legal issues that must be addressed by your personal injury attorney before any funds may legally be distributed to you.

What about compensation for my pain and suffering?

If the injuries you sustained were caused by another party’s negligence, you may be entitled to additional compensation. This is known as a “bodily injury claim”. Your ability to recover bodily injury compensation is based on a number of factors, including the severity of your injuries, the duration of your pain and suffering, and the limits of bodily injury coverage available to the party responsible for your injuries. In Massachusetts, you will not be permitted to pursue a bodily injury claim unless your car accident-related medical bills exceed $2,000 or your injury (1) causes death, or (2) consists in whole or in part of permanent and serious disfigurement, or (4) results in the qualified loss of sight or hearing. A lawyer with experience in handling personal injury claims resulting from car accidents can best advise you on how to proceed with your personal injury claim.

What can I expect to recover for my car accident injuries?

Because the value of a bodily injury claim depends on many factors, it may take some time for your lawyer to form an opinion as to the value of your claim. No lawyer can responsibly evaluate a client’s bodily injury claim until the injured person has reached a “medical end result”. A medical end result may not mean that you have returned to your pre-accident condition. It simply means that no change in your condition is anticipated. Once a medical end result has been reached, your personal injury lawyer will advise you as to the potential value of your claim and the process involved in securing a recovery.

How much do Massachusetts car accident lawyers charge?

Because most people do not have adequate savings with which to pay a lawyer in connection with a bodily injury claim, most lawyers who concentrate in the area of personal injury law will work on a “contingent fee” basis. Under a contingent fee agreement, your lawyer agrees to accept a percentage of any sum he or she recovers on your behalf as the full legal fee. In many cases, the contingent fee will be one-third of any amount recovered. So, for example, if your lawyer recovered $9,000 on your behalf, a legal fee of $3,000 would be paid to your lawyer from the proceeds recovered. If no recovery is made, you would not be charged a legal fee for the work performed by your lawyer. A written contingent fee agreement should be prepared and signed by you and your personal injury lawyer before your lawyer begins work on your case. You should review the agreement carefully and make sure you understand all of its terms and conditions.

How long will my Boston auto accident case take?

The amount of time necessary to resolve a claim for personal injury compensation in Massachusetts varies greatly from case to case. A very serious case, involving multiple injuries and complex theories of liability resulting from a car accident, can take several years to conclude. Conversely, a case involving less serious injuries and more obvious liability may be concluded in a matter of months. Your lawyer is in the best position to advise you as to when your case is likely to be concluded.

Will I have to go to court?

While most cases involving claims for personal injury are resolved by way of settlement, a lawyer experienced in the area of car accident personal injury lawyer must be prepared to bring the case to trial if an acceptable settlement cannot be reached. As the saying goes: Lawyers who plan to settle often find themselves faced with a trial, while lawyers prepared for trial more often see their cases settle. Your personal injury lawyer will advise you as to which option is best for you.

If you’ve been injured in a car accident in Massachusetts, remember:

* Seek the advice of an experienced, auto accident attorney.
* Communicate with your lawyer regularly.
* A properly handled case takes time to prepare. Don’t rush the case.

Fatal Car Accidents in Massachusetts

The sudden and unexpected death of a person in a car accident is a tragedy.  Depending on the circumstances involved in the crash, the family of the decedent may learn little information about the cause of the crash until after the investigation is complete. Often the Massachusetts State Police Accident Reconstruction Unit is dispatched to perform reconstruction to determine how the accident occurred and whether criminal charges are warranted.

There is a type of civil case called a wrongful death case that can be brought against the responsible party by the victim’s family.  A wrongful death case holds the person liable for the death and compensates the decedent’s estate accordingly for specified damages.  These damages can be found in the Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 229, section 2, and section 6, which provides for the following:

• Reasonable Expected Net Income: Not to be confused with lost earnings or a loss of one’s earning capability; this is calculated by starting with the victim’s projected earnings for the remainder of his expected career. Next, deductions are made to find the amount of said earnings the beneficiary would have received had the decedent survived. It is important to note that the surviving beneficiaries are only entitled to the amounts the decedent would have given them or used for their personal benefit if the accident had not occurred. Juries in these cases should consider the life expectancies for both the victim and the beneficiaries.
• Consortium-Type Damages: This statute also enumerates elements that describe the many aspects of relationships within families. These elements provide monetary compensation for the lost relationships the decedent had with each beneficiary. Because the statute is purely compensatory and not punitive in nature, Massachusetts courts distinguish the fact that the loss often differs between the various beneficiaries due to the type of relationship he and the decedent shared.
• Conscious Pain and Suffering: Under General Laws c. 229, § 6, damages can be recovered for the time between the injury and death of the decedent as compensation for conscious pain and suffering. A claim under § 6 is, as its core, what the defendant could have claimed for their injuries had they survived the accident. In order to recover the involved damages, the plaintiff has to use a preponderance of the evidence to show that the movement, acts, or appearance of the victim after the injury were the product of, or symptomatic of, the decedent’s conscious effort or suffering.
• Medical Expenses: Massachusetts’ law states that the victim’s estate can recover any and all reasonable medical expenses arising from the decedent’s injuries that resulting from the defendant’s negligence. Although there is no specific statement about medical expenses within the wrongful death statute itself, a claim for medical expenses will usually last after the death of the injured person and is generally considered recoverable during a wrongful death action.
• Punitive Damages: Under General Laws c. 229, § 2, punitive damages totaling $5,000 minimum when the death resulted from “the malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct or by the gross negligence of the defendant” can be recovered. However, this benchmark is quite hard for the plaintiff to attain. In order to demonstrate that the conduct was, in fact, malicious, willful, or wanton, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the defendant’s actions are beyond simply gross or culpable negligence, and that they amount to a quasi-criminal activity that was intentionally committed with the awareness it would likely result in severe injury. If the plaintiff is able to meet this burden of proof, then there is no cap placed on the damages that can be awarded.

Teen Car Accidents in Massachusetts

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death of teenagers in the United States.  In 2010, seven teens between the ages of 16 and 19 died every day in car accidents.  Of those injured and killed, boys are twice as likely to be injured or killed as girls.  There is also a correlation between teen passengers and a higher rate of accidents.

Because teenagers are inexperienced drivers, they tend to cause more car accidents because they are more likely to speed, underestimate a dangerous situation, not use a seat belt, and drive drunk or get in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking.

Massachusetts enacted the Graduated Driver’s License program, which provides for a stepped-up basis for driver’s license from learner’s permit to junior operator’s license to full driver’s license.  Learner’s permits are available to teenagers beginning at age 16. At age 16 ½ an individual is eligible to take a road test to obtain their Junior Operator’s License.  Once received, they are considered “junior operators” until they are 18 years old.  During this time restrictions are placed on who can be a passenger within the junior operator’s vehicle and the times of day that the junior operator can drive a vehicle.

During the junior operator phase, any criminal-related motor vehicle offenses, moving violations, seatbelt violations, or passenger restriction violations shall be an automatic loss of license for a period of time, and stiff penalties are implemented before a license can be reissued.  These strict penalties are an attempt to prevent the infractions from occurring in the first place.

Another restriction placed on junior operators is that they are not allowed to use a cell phone while driving.  Effective September 30, 2010, any person under the age of 18 is prohibited from using a cell phone while driving.  This includes making or answering phone calls, sending or looking at text messages, sending or looking at e-mails, or anything else that the phone is capable of doing.

Unfortunately, this prohibition has not prevented teenage motor vehicle accidents involving cell phone use. Despite the risks, the majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone restrictions.  In 2007, driver distractions, such as using a cell phone or text messaging, contributed to nearly 1,000 crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers.  Over 60 % of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those that admit to risky driving also admit to text messaging behind the wheel. Each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year. Almost 50% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are texting while driving. Over one-third of all young drivers, ages 24 and under, are texting on the road. Teens say that texting is their number one driver distraction.

Massachusetts Car Accidents Caused by Negligence

Car Accidents are usually caused when one motorist is negligent. Negligence occurs when a person does something that other reasonable people would not have done, or did not do something that reasonable people would have done. Examples include failing to stop a stop sign or red traffic light. Since all reasonable people would stop their vehicle at a traffic signal, failing to do so is negligent. This is where a Massachusetts car accident law firm can help.

The elements of negligence are duty, breach, and causation between the breach and the injuries.  When a person operates a vehicle on a public way, they owe a duty to other motorists to operate their vehicle with due care.  Whenever they fail to do so (by running a red light and colliding with another vehicle), they have breached their duty of care.  The final element, causation, means that the negligent motorist can be held civilly responsible to compensate an injured person if the injured person’s injuries are causally related to the negligent act.

Injuries that can be considered causally related are injuries that are directly related to the crash. For example, there is no doubt but that a broken arm or leg that occurred during a crash is causally related to the accident. However, causation can become much more difficult when a person had a pre-existing injury at the time of the accident that was made worse because of the crash. For example, a person may have had lower back at the time of the crash, but the person’s pain became worse after the collision. In this scenario, it can be challenging to show the person’s condition at the time of the crash (their “baseline condition”) and then the degree of change after the crash. In these cases, we obtain prior medical records, scans, and reports to show the exact condition at the time of the crash. Then, our personal injury lawyers work with treating physicians to provide reports detailing the nature and degree of the change from before to after the accident. These reports are invaluable in proving the causation of injuries that insurers may try to label as pre-existing.

In some cases, the person injured may have contributed to the happening of the accident. If so, that is called comparative negligence. The existence of comparative negligence will not bar recovery in a civil case, but it can reduce the amount of a person’s recovery. For example, at a trial, if a jury believes that the injured person was 10% comparatively negligent, then the court (not the jury) will reduce the amount that the jury awarded by 10%. So, if $100,000 was awarded to an injured person, the court will automatically reduce the award by $10,000.

U-Coverage

Frank Taylor, a 39-year-old firefighter, husband, and father of two teenage daughters, left his house on a cold January morning to pick up some groceries at a nearby convenience store. After exiting the store, Frank noticed his neighbor standing beside her car in the parking lot, unable to start her engine. As Frank looked beneath the hood to investigate the cause of the problem, a second car, operated by a highly intoxicated driver, careened from the road into the parking lot, smashing into the disabled car, and sending Frank traveling through the air before coming to rest on the frozen pavement.

The drunk driver was arrested by police at the scene and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Frank was left with lower-body paralysis, permanently confined to a wheelchair, and permanently unable to support his wife and daughters. Fearing they may lose their home due to Frank’s loss of income and his rising medical expenses, the family turned to a lawyer specializing in serious car accidents to obtain compensation from the drunk driver’s insurance company. What the Taylors were shocked to learn was that the driver who had caused the accident had only the minimum insurance coverage required by law, and all of it would likely be paid to the hospital and doctors who treated Frank following the accident.

The Taylors, their lawyer informed them, would not receive any financial compensation for their losses.

For those who believe the Taylors’ experience was an aberration – think again. Insufficient insurance coverage, even by “well-insured” motor vehicle operators, is an increasingly common problem, especially in depressed economic climates where people tend to reduce their insurance costs rather than increase them. What is perhaps most frustrating to the victims of these tragedies is that the insurance coverage they believed they had, and which would have ensured that the Taylor family received the compensation they justly deserved, was the very coverage most people tend to forego.

The example of the fictional Taylor family’s ordeal is an amalgam of countless cases, involving persons badly injured or killed as a result of motor vehicle negligence who never receive as much as a single dollar in compensation due to their own decision to forego “Underinsured Motorist Coverage,” commonly referred to as “U-Coverage.” U-Coverage is a category of automobile insurance coverage available to every insured driver. It pays you, or a member of your household, if the person responsible for the accident does not have enough coverage to fully compensate the injured person. Since anyone in Massachusetts can legally put a car on the road by purchasing the “minimum” liability coverage limits of $20,000, the total compensation available to those who do not purchase U-Coverage may be greatly limited or maybe nothing at all.

By way of example, had Frank Taylor purchased U-Coverage limits of $250,000 from his own automobile insurance company, he and his family would have received at least that amount in compensation, regardless of how little insurance coverage was available from the drunk driver who struck him. And not a dollar of the $250,000 could legally be seized by any health care provider, hospital, or other “lien holder” on account of unpaid medical bills.

Persons interested in learning more about the motor vehicle insurance coverage they own or may wish to own are strongly advised to consult with their insurance agent when renewing coverage. Parker Scheer can also assist persons interested in learning more about the different forms of motor vehicle insurance coverage available in Massachusetts, and what these coverages provide in the way of benefits.

If You or Someone You Know Has Been Seriously Injured in a Car Accident in Massachusetts, Contact Us As Soon As Possible

If you or someone close to you has suffered an injury in a car, truck, or motorcycle accident due to the negligence of another driver, contact us to obtain a free case evaluation. You can expect to receive a response from one of our highly experienced car accident attorneys within hours. We can be reached seven days a week by telephone at 617-886-0500 or by filling out the form here. There is never a fee charged to discuss your potential case and all information provided to us is maintained in strict confidence. 

Massachusetts Car Accident Settlement Amounts

Motor Vehicle Accident / Products Liability; Ruptured lumbar disc; $400,000

The employee was a 35-year-old truck driver whose brakes failed as he was nearing “deadman’s curve” in Florida, Massachusetts. He was able to roll the tractor-trailer onto to its side but in so doing suffered fractured ribs and a broken pelvis. It took nearly two hours to remove the employee from the cab as it hung over the guard rail nearly 100 feet above a cliff. He was transported to Bay State Medical Center where he underwent surgery to stabilize and repair his pelvic fractures. Claims were filed against the lessor of the truck, the manufacturer of the brake system, and the repair facility which did the vehicle’s most recent brake repair. After nearly two years of extensive discovery, the case was settled following mediation. In addition to this settlement, the truck driver’s workers’ compensation claim was settled after receipt of 3 and ½ years of benefits for $ 60,000.00.

Closed Head Injury; Premises liability; Failure to safely off-load construction materials.; $300,000

The plaintiff, a 33-year-old freight truck operator, had been contracted to deliver two large, steel trusses, from Easton, Massachusetts to a construction site less than an hour away in Marlboro, Massachusetts. After arriving at the construction site, the plaintiff attempted to locate the steel contractor who was responsible for the off-loading of the trusses. According to the terms of the delivery agreement, the delivery was considered a “no-touch load.” This means the steel contractor was solely responsible for removing the trusses and the plaintiff driver was not supposed to participate or assist with the task. After locating the steel contractor at the construction site, the plaintiff returned to the flatbed truck and stood beside it. The plaintiff watched as the steel contractor began to off-load the trusses from the truck. Several tall, steel support beams, designed to prevent the load from falling off the side of the flatbed during transport, were removed from the sides of the truck to allow the steel contractor to access the trusses. One of these tall, steel side poles was leaned against the truck’s “headboard”, which is the area that separates the flat bed from the rear of the cab. In order to off-load the trusses from the flat bed, the defendant steel contractor placed two, large, wooden planks against the flat-bed. He intended to move the steel trusses from the flat-bed by hand and then to the ground using the inclined wooden planks as a ramp. While the defendant was in the process of shifting the load toward the inclined planks, one of the steel side poles, which had been placed against the headboard, suddenly fell and struck the plaintiff on the head, resulting in a serious closed head injury. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant to recover compensation for his severe head injuries. In the claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant steel contractor was ill-prepared to off-load the steel trusses. This fact was confirmed by the defendant’s deposition, where he stated that off-loading steel trusses was not typically done using wooden planks as a ramp, which is what he attempted to do in this situation. The defendant stated that the steel trusses should have been removed from the truck with the use of a crane. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in deciding to move forward with the off-loading process once it was determined that a crane was unavailable to him. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should have known that it was not safe to proceed with off-loading until he had access to a crane. The case was settled outside of the courtroom. The plaintiff was awarded a total of $300,000.