Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

There’s an old saying that “Curiosity killed the cat,” and I’m sorry to report that in this situation, that old adage is true.

It happened on Martha’s Vineyard, where a driver’s curiosity about the former estate of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis got the best of her, and sadly, resulted in her death, and that of another woman, due to a Massachusetts car accident. A third woman sustained minor injuries.

One Judith Morse, 70 years old, of West Tisbury, was backing her SUV, a 2000 Land Cruiser, down the Kennedy estate’s private driveway at Red Gate Farm in Aquinnah, when she suddenly struck a tree. Disoriented, Morse next tried to drive forward, but her vehicle then struck an electrical box, along with a porch attached to a garage. Morse then traveled up a hill and had a head-on collision with a tree. Morse and a second woman, Susan Lombard, 69, were killed in the crash. In the rear was another passenger, who received minor injuries.

As a Boston, Massachusetts injury lawyer, I’ve certainly blogged about this before, but the truth is — you can never take life for granted. Every day offers a reason to be thankful, and to be grateful, because you never know how long you have to be alive in this world.

When she got up on March 21, 2012, Cynthia Pacheco of New Bedford thought she was just going out on a bike ride with her husband. Little did she know that she was going to die later that afternoon. Ms. Pacheco, 58, was riding her bicycle along Samuel Barrett Boulevard in New Bedford, when she was struck by a Federal Express freight truck. The driver of the FedEx truck, one Mark Sims, told police that he was making a left turn when the collision took place. After the crash, Ms. Pacheco was transported to New Bedford’s St. Luke’s Hospital, then Rhode Island Hospital, where she passed away.

If you – or one of your loved ones — has been a victim of a Massachusetts bike-truck accident, it is important that you contact us and meet with us as soon as possible after such a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident. Most families of injury victims in Massachusetts have the right to be compensated for a variety of expenses and bills; these include medical expenses, hospital care, lost wages, loss of future earnings,prescription medicines, lost services and care from a spouse, temporary injury, permanent injury, and pain and suffering. Many times, the family of injury victims, in the days immediately following an accident, take uninformed steps; doing so may compromise their ability to be compensated for the full extent of the injuries.

The annual Harvard-Yale football game yesterday will be known not for its memorable play or a sudden-death win, but for a sudden death of another kind: A young woman was killed by the driver of a U-Haul truck that was transporting beer kegs and other tailgating supplies to the game, held at Yale University this year. The annual event between the two Ivy League schools is 128 years old, has long been an institution among alumni of the schools, and is known as “The Game” among students and alumni.

The woman who was killed in the accident was identified by New Haven police as Nancy Barry, who lived in Salem, Massachusetts. According to a spokesperson from Yale University, Ms. Barry was not an alumna of either Harvard or Yale. Witnesses told police that Ms. Barry was run over by the truck as it accelerated when turning a corner. She was taken to Yale-New Haven Hospital, and pronounced dead shortly after 10 a.m. The two other victims suffering injuries were identified as Sarah Short, a 30-year-old Yale student from New Haven, and Elizabeth Dernbach, who was reported to be a staff member at Harvard’s Division of Continuing Education. Ms. Short suffered life-threatening injuries and was listed in critical but stable condition at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and Ms. Dernbach sustained minor injuries and was treated briefly at the Hospital of Saint Raphael in New Haven.

This fatality and these injuries are far too common. As a Boston, Massachusetts car accident lawyer, I can assure my readers that while most motor vehicle accidents involve vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, a great many also involve pedestrian injuries. This is especially so at events where large numbers of cars, trucks, and pedestrians are concentrated together at public events – like football games and concerts. Tailgating at these events – drinking and eating – is almost as popular as the events themselves. The lethal combination of too many vehicles, too many people and alcohol, is a deadly combination. In fact, it is the perfect storm for what happened yesterday. While “legacy” events such as the Harvard-Yale football game, and lesser-known college football games, have for years allowed the open use of alcohol at these events (in practice unregulated to any effective degree,) for a long time now I’ve thought that practice unwise. I should point out that while the driver of the truck that caused this death and these injuries has not yet, to my knowledge, been charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, he was transporting kegs of beer in the rented U-Haul truck he was driving, though he was taken into custody and questioned.

Texting while driving automobiles has been the focus of a lot of conversation in the recent past, in several states. In Massachusetts alone, a new law against texting while driving became effective in 2010. Most people, though, wouldn’t expect that the problem of texting while driving would be witnessed on a subway car.

Yet in 2009, that’s exactly what happened on a Green Line subway car operated by a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) driver. The subway car driver had been sending a text message to his girlfriend while accelerating the trolley from zero to 25 miles per hour along 586 feet of subway track. The driver went through a yellow subway light and ran two red subway lights before colliding with a stationery trolley with its brake lights on, in the Government Center MBTA stop. The crash injured 68 people and caused nearly $10 million in MBTA property damage. Samantha Mattei, 21, was one of those 68 injured. As a result of the crash, she suffered a broken back, a serious concussion, nerve damage, and lacerations to her face. She also suffered other injuries causing vertigo, nausea, and constant headaches. Two years after the accident, she still walks with a cane. Because she cannot drive a car due to her injuries, her parents must drive her everywhere. Because she has difficulty concentrating on her academic studies, she says she is on the verge of losing her scholarships.

So it came as no surprise that Ms. Mattei last week filed a lawsuit against the MBTA and Aiden Quinn, the subway car operator, in Salem Superior Court. In filing her suit, Ms. Mattei told the Boston Globe that “I was injured as a result of something that was perfectly preventable. As a result of negligence, I was personally affected in a way that has cost me money, time, and many parts of my life. I would like to see things change for the better.” The Massachusetts personal injury lawsuit seeks $51,425 as compensation for medical bills and lost wages, as well as damages for pain and suffering. If the case is not settled prior to trial, a jury would decide how much, if any, to award for pain and suffering. MBTA officials declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing its policy not to comment on pending litigation. A spokesman did note, however, that the trolley operator, that Aiden Quinn, was fired by the MBTA, and pleaded guilty last December to negligent operation of the trolley, a misdemeanor.

In my last post on this subject, I discussed the incredibly rare, recent jury verdict of $12 million that was awarded in a case involving a Norfolk County car accident. Almost all of Massachusetts, and especially Norfolk County, is notorious for finding against plaintiffs in Massachusetts personal injury lawsuits, so this verdict was widely noticed. Much of the reason for that very large and rare verdict amount, had to do with the perception that the defendant and his grandparents were not testifying truthfully in the case. But the other, equally important reason, was a legal doctrine known as “Negligent Entrustment.”

You’ll note from Part One of this post, that the driver of the car (Vittorio C. Gentile, Jr.) who injured the plaintiffs (in this case Douglas and Joseph Homsi,) was driving a 1999 Lexus SUV owned by his grandparents, Lydia and Vittorio Gentile. The younger Gentile had been found criminally responsible for the head-on collision in a criminal prosecution, and served jail time for that conviction. Evidence in the case showed that the younger Gentile had the tacit permission of his grandparents to use their car the night of this accident (evidence showed that they made the car keys available to him, and that he had driven their car in the two days preceding the accident.) Normally, in such a situation involving “permissive use,” the owner’s automobile insurance policy would provide coverage up to the policy limits on that vehicle, and if a jury verdict or pre-trial settlement was reached that exceeded the limits of that auto policy, it might be possible to pursue the vehicle owner’s homeowner’s policy and any umbrella coverage provided by that homeowner’s policy. And normally, it would be the driver’s conduct and actions that would guide a jury to determine liability and the extent of any damages. But in an odd twist, in this case it was the conduct of the driver’s grandparents that caused this jury to return the verdict that they did. This was largely because of the doctrine of Negligent Entrustment.

You see, evidence was introduced to show that Vittorio’s grandparents were well aware of his horrid driving record, together with his general personal history, which apparently did not reflect a high level of responsibility. Despite this, they made their car available to him. In court documents, it was revealed that the elder Gentiles denied that they were in any way aware of their grandson’s poor driving record, and also denied that they had either made their car available to him for his use, or that they gave him permission to drive it. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, their lawyer was smart enough to obtain documents that showed: 1) Not only were the grandparents aware of their grandson’s record of previous driving accidents, they were so aware of it that they held a special meeting with their auto insurance agent, following high premium surcharges they were paying due to their grandson’s inclusion on their policy as a “covered driver.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys alleged that the younger Gentile had been hit with so many surcharges for operator citations, license suspensions and accidents dating back to 1997, that his grandparents had him removed him from their insurance policy even though other grandchildren were still covered and permitted to use their vehicles. It was reported that video deposition testimony of the insurance agent who issued multiple auto vehicle policies for the grandparents proved this, and was especially damaging to the grandparents’ claim that they had no idea their grandson was a high-risk driver. This evidence established knowledge and awareness on the grandparents’ part of the dangerous driving record of the defendant.

In an encouraging sign that juries in Massachusetts have not completely bought the fallacy of “tort reform” and lost sight of the meaning of civil justice, a Norfolk County Superior Court jury recently awarded a $12 million plaintiff’s verdict in the case of a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident that resulted in horrific injuries for the injured parties who brought suit against the at-fault driver.

The case, Silviero v. Gentile, Norfolk Superior Court No.: 2007-212, resulted from a 2006 crash in Milton that left two men, brothers in their 60’s who lived with each other, devastatingly injured for the rest of their lives. The case is noteworthy not only for the large verdict, (especially in Norfolk County, which has not been known for producing large plaintiff’s verdicts,) but for the punishment the jury obviously felt was warranted in light of the defendant’s clearly false testimony in the case.

The two brothers who were victims in this Milton Massachusetts car accident case, Douglas and Joseph Homsi of Needham, were driving on Blue Hill Avenue in Milton at around 2 a.m. on Dec. 10, 2006, when a speeding Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) driven by (then) 26-year-old Vittorio C. Gentile Jr. of Canton, swerved across the double yellow lines in the roadway and collided head-on with the Homsi brothers’ vehicle. The resulting impact was so severe that rescue workers had to use the Jaws of Life to pry the brothers from the twisted wreckage. Joseph Homsi, who was the passenger, suffered a broken sternum and fractured ribs, as well as internal injuries. However, his brother, Douglas Homsi, who was the driver, suffered the worst from the impact, sustaining severe multiple bone fractures as well as injuries to his liver, spleen and other organs, which, collectively, left him unable to breathe or eat without assistance. The combination of these injuries later caused Douglas to suffer a stroke, which left him unable to speak. Making the result of Douglas’ injuries even more tragic was the fact that Douglas served as an informal caretaker for his brother Joseph, who suffers from mental disabilities. That is one of the reasons why the two brothers lived together in their Needham home.

File this new development under “Solve One Problem; Create Another.” For years, car manufacturers have tried to make their vehicles operate as quietly as possible. Helps keep noise pollution down, and helps maximize the sounds produced by the internal audio system, right? Those efforts usually revolved around minimizing engine noise in the only real engine most people had ever known – the internal combustion engine. But along the way, and somewhat unexpectedly, came the hybrid gas-electric engine, and with it as new phenomenon: A completely silent car when “on” but not moving, or moving at slow speeds (usually under 15 MPH.)

What’s the problem? When hybrid cars are “idling” at a stop sign, or moving but at speeds usually less than 15 MPH, they are powered by the hushed electric motor of the electric-gas hybrid. The gasoline-powered engine only kicks in when speeds exceed 15 MPH – at that point, the engine produces sound similar to most car engines you now hear. It doesn’t take a genius to see the trouble here: More motor vehicle accidents and injuries when hybrids are at stop signs, or moving slowly. Since a great majority of these types of motor vehicle accidents will happen when cars have been stopped at intersections or moving slowly in parking lots, a great many of them will likely involve pedestrians. By the way: Don’t be fooled into thinking that a pedestrian can’t be hurt that badly by a motor vehicle traveling at 15 MPH or less. Trust me: A person can be killed or seriously injured when hit by a car traveling at even 10 MPH. I’ve seen it before: Horrific injuries involving paralysis, even death.

This is no small problem. As hybrids proliferate and major auto manufacturers prepare to launch battery-electric only vehicles (even more silent than hybrids,) many see the growing injury threat to pedestrians. To deal with this unexpected problem, automotive engineers are researching how they might actually add some noise back into the hybrid models now being manufactured. But how to do this without re-creating the noise-polluting car engines that most people always hated? Nissan is now developing the “Leaf”, their version of an all-electric (vs. hybrid) car, and they’ve recently tested some of their ideas for “artificial” noises to officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as focus groups. Some possibilities? A Chime; a melody from a popular song; even possibly a futuristic “whirring.” There is also some talk that Congress may issue a measure requiring vehicles to produce “non-visual” warnings to pedestrians. Cars such as Tesla’s Roadster, Nissan’s Leaf and General Motors’ Volt, will depend entirely on battery electric power, and may be even quieter than existing hybrids.

In yet another example of how dangerous everyday driving can be, a 32-year-old Dedham woman was killed earlier this week as the result of injuries she received after being struck by another car. Making this death even worse, were the circumstances under which the tragedy occurred: A neighbor drove his SUV into a birthday party being held for the victim’s five year-old daughter, and the victim, Kimberly McGinley, was struck by the SUV while she was trying to get other children attending the party out of the SUV’s path. Despite efforts by emergency personnel at the accident scene and by doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, Ms. McGinley died.

Now, a 32 year-old woman is dead, and a 5 year-old child motherless. As a Boston car accident lawyer, I see these tragedies all too frequently. The lifelong damage they cause is incalculable. According to police investigators, Zeggai S. Malu, 71, of Somerville, drove his Nissan Pathfinder across the sidewalk at 21 Munroe Street, then onto the lawn at 25 Munroe. The SUV struck McGinley and a 2-year-old Roslindale child, police said. The boy was found under the car, but was not pinned. The child is still at Massachusetts General Hospital, but is in stable condition. The operator of the SUV, Mr. Malu, has cooperated with investigators, police said. Preliminary indications are that speed, drugs or alcohol were not involved, according to police.

This preliminary report underscores the reality that while driving under the influence is a terrible problem in our society, it doesn’t take drunk driving to inflict the kind of tragedy witnessed here: All it takes is taking your attention off the road for a split second, and the results can be devastating. In my practice, I see this happen all the time. It can happen to anyone. While no charges have been filed against this operator, his driver’s license has been suspended for, among other reasons, Operating To Endanger.

When a victim or a victim’s family comes to our firm, as Boston, Massachusetts car accident lawyers, we activate an entire team to help them. We cannot turn time back and prevent the accident. We cannot bring back a loved one who has been lost due to someone else’s negligent driving. No lawyer can. But we can, and do, act rapidly to ensure that the victim recovers as much financial compensation as possible under the circumstances. That is one of the key reasons why automobile tort law exists as a distinct type of legal practice; it is why auto insurance is compulsory in Massachusetts – to ensure minimum amounts of insurance are available to compensate victims of Massachusetts car accidents, and other drivers’ negligence.

If you’ve been injured by someone else’s negligent driving, call us and we can help you recover the maximum financial compensation possible under the circumstances. In the immediate case of this tragedy, where a dependent child is left without a parent, the victim’s family will need to secure the maximum amount of damages possible to help provide for that child’s future. Aside from a negligence claim arising from the reported operation of this motor vehicle, a wrongful death lawsuit might also be possible (though to be certain I would need to know more facts, which at the time of this posting, I am not in possession of.)

Take a lesson from this tragedy: Always pay attention to your driving – and stay off your cell phones when behind the wheel!
Continue reading

In my previous post, I discussed the disturbing news that Massachusetts has the lowest rate of seat belt usage in the United States. Apparently, a lot of people in this state think that unless they’re barreling down a highway at 75 MPH, they won’t be badly injured in a car crash and therefore don’t need to wear a seat beat. These are the same people who will slow down to morbidly take a look at an accident scene along the road – and drive away still unconvinced. If anyone doubts that severe injuries and death can easily result from a 30 MPH car crash, just ask Beatriz Fuentes. Her daughter, Natalie DeLeon, was not wearing a seat belt when she was killed in 2006. The car DeLeon and her boyfriend were in was traveling about 30 miles an hour when the vehicle in front of it stopped short. As a Boston car accident lawyer, I see these accidents happen all the time; all it takes is a split second, to turn everything deadly. DeLeon’s boyfriend, who was driving, swerved and lost control. Their car rolled over. “She was ejected and suffered multiple major injuries,” said Fuentes, who has become a vocal advocate of seat belt use and founded the Friends of Natalie Bilingual Seat Belt Campaign in Springfield.

Unbuckled passengers in a car that is moving violently after a collision or rollover “become like a rag in a dryer,” said Fuentes. True. Unbuckled passengers in a car doing only 20 MPH are like projectiles in the car. As a Boston car crash lawyer, I can assure you that the injuries that result from such a crash can easily result in death – and sometimes worse. (If you think that death is the worst thing that can happen to you, try to think of what life would be like, burned over 90 per cent of your body and paralyzed from the neck down.)

Natalie’s Law is a bill that would strengthen Massachusetts law to allow police to pull over motorists who are not wearing a seat belt. Current law allows police to issue seat belt citations only when they have stopped a vehicle for some other, unrelated reason. This is known as a “secondary seat belt law.” Otherwise, police can flag down a seat belt violator only when a child under 12 is not strapped in. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that a primary seat belt law in Massachusetts would increase the use of seat belts by 12.5 percent and, as a result, save 27 lives per year in Massachusetts and prevent more than 1,000 serious injuries. Last year in Massachusetts, 277 were killed in motor vehicle accidents. The lead sponsor of Natalie’s Law, state Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, noted that, “In every state that has passed a primary seat belt law, seat belt use has gone up dramatically and fatalities have gone down.” The legislation would also raise the fine for each violation from $25 to $50.

Supporters were hoping the Legislature would approve Natalie’s Law before a June 30 deadline for the state to receive $13.6 million in federal funds for traffic safety. But the deadline passed; the bill never made it to the floor. Similar legislation filed in Massachusetts has failed to pass repeatedly over recent years. Opponents have argued that the law could lead to racial profiling by giving police another reason to stop drivers. In my opinion as an experienced Boston personal injury attorney, that’s paranoid and ridiculous. Other vocal opponents include the National Motorists Association, which encourages seat belt use, but contends that “individuals should retain the freedom and responsibility to make choices affecting their own safety and the safety of their families.” Lawmakers have also been listening to drivers in their districts who embrace “the libertarian idea that we shouldn’t live in a nanny state,” said Jeff Larson, general manager of SmartRoute Systems Inc., in Cambridge.

It’s stunning to me that a supposedly educated populace like that in Massachusetts could be so blind when it comes to common sense. Then again, so many people only learn the hard way.
Continue reading

What is it about drivers in Massachusetts? Not only do we have the reputation of being among the least civilized drivers in the nation, apparently we are also among the least intelligent: Recent statistics indicate that Massachusetts is the state with the lowest percentage of seat belt use in the nation. According to a survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,) only about 67 percent of Massachusetts drivers are likely to buckle up. That lags behind even New Hampshire, the only state without a mandatory seat belt law, where the usage rate is 69 percent.

This is despite the fact that the Massachusetts seat belt law requires drivers to buckle up. So what is wrong with these drivers? After seven people were killed in three separate Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents over the recent July 4 weekend, (see my previous post,) in which almost all of those killed were not wearing their seat belts, the Boston Globe took to the streets to ask why facts like these don’t prompt more people don’t wear their seat belts. To hear it from the average driver, there are nearly as many reasons to avoid using seat belts as there are people who don’t use them. Even news of these recent fatalities, however, didn’t seem to faze people. It seems that, despite the enlightened reputation that Massachusetts carries, a lot of people don’t like being told what to do. Some people say they’re uncomfortable. “Uncomfortable”? Ever try to imagine how “comfortable” it is, having your face smashed into a windshield?

Tom Vanderbilt, author of “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do“, had some ideas to explain this insanity: “People engage in all kinds of magical thinking: That crashes happen to other people; that the air-bag will protect me (airbags in fact provide much less safety than belts); that I’m only going a short way or I’m on a quiet country road, so I don’t need one, etc.” Some drivers actually think that if you are driving 20 or 30 miles per hour for a short distance, you don’t need to wear a seat belt. Talk about foolish thinking. In my more than twenty years’ experience as a Boston car accident attorney, I can attest to the reality that most motor vehicle accidents occur at speeds below 40 MPH. And the injuries and deaths that can result would shock any one of these people who think otherwise. I call these people the “WOHATOME©'” crowd: “Won’t Happen To Me”. (Yes, that’s copyrighted. If “NIMBY” helped make Barney Frank famous, I can do the same.)

In my next post on this subject, I’ll address what might be done to improve this sorry situation.
Continue reading