William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
Construction Accident
Car Accident
Nursing Home

|

It’s always a sad situation when there is a Massachusetts car crash, and one would think that the only thing worse than that is a Massachusetts car-bus crash. Now factor in the fact that the accident involved four Kingston students – on the very day of their Junior Prom – and you have a horrible situation that instills even more grief in everyone.

The Kingston car-bus accident took place on Lake Street this past Friday morning at 7:15AM. Four students – three girls and one boy – were headed to school, when apparently, the red BMW carrying the four students crossed over the double yellow line. They then crashed into the front grill of the school bus.

The four students involved in this Kingston car-bus crash were taken to Silver Lake Regional High School’s football field, where they were then taken by helicopter to Boston hospitals. The only student identified in the crash was one Monica Knight, who, according to a spokesperson for the South Shore Hospital in Weymouth, said that Knight was in fair condition. No information on the other students is currently available. The injured students are from Halifax and Plympton.

Continue reading

|

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.

Continue reading

|

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.

Continue reading

|

As I frequently say, the devil is in the details.

In a recent Massachusetts medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff was awarded a $350,000 settlement, both parties involved in the dispute argued whether the patient’s health problems were the result of a robotic surgery, or simply a case of hemorrhoids.

The settlement was the result of a botched surgery. The female patient underwent a robotic-assisted total hysterectomy and ovary removal for uterine fibroids and cysts. In the process of removing her uterus, the doctors also wound up damaging a substantial part of her sigmoid colon. This required an emergency loop ileostomy, in which she had to live with an ostomy bag so that waste could be drained. The patient was going to testify that she was never explained the risks of robotic surgery. This is that “small detail” which, in effect, turned out to be quite huge.

Continue reading

|

What you’ll learn in this post: How the tobacco industry has used the doctrine of “commercial free speech,” and the First Amendment against the public interest in this country.

In case you thought that we as a society are making headway against one of the most pernicious and harmful industries in this country – the tobacco industry – I’m afraid I have some bad news. To fully appreciate this post will require that you have traveled to Europe in the past ten years or so. Because across the pond, a lot of things are looked at much more sensibly than they are here in the good old USA. Exhibit “A” on this point is the Europeans’ approach to tobacco and cigarette advertising. In 2001, the member nations of the European Union formally enacted a requirement that each nation pass regulations to assure that graphic warnings and images be placed on the front and back of each package of cigarettes. Member nations of the European Union can choose from a list of 14 to 42 graphic warnings and images – all of which communicate the very stark and morbid risk of not only death, but a variety of other chronic health risks. For a look at these images, click here. Now that you’ve seen these warnings, I trust you can see how very effective they are.

Back to the US: Here, it took decades for the federal government to come around to the reality that the tobacco industry has been knowingly marketing a highly lethal product for almost a century. While it took seemingly forever to bring these manufacturers to court and hold them accountable for their unsafe products under state and federal product liability laws, justice was finally found in a number of cases across the country, including class action litigation that several state attorneys general brought to recoup billions of state Medicaid dollars spent to treat illnesses caused by smoking and tobacco. Tobacco liability was finally something that the courts embraced. The next logical step was to emulate the European Union’s approach to cigarette advertising, and require that manufacturers place graphic warnings and images on all their packaging here in the United States. And the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did just that, recently requiring that all cigarette advertising carry graphic warnings on their packaging, similar to that required in Europe. Makes sense, wouldn’t you think? A lot of people do.

Continue reading

|

I’ve remarked more than once to my friends and colleagues that, watching just a few of the 20-plus Republican Party primary debates these past few months, there were times that I honestly didn’t know if I was watching a skit from Saturday Night Live. (I mean that.) So pathetically laughable, shallow, and completely filled with hypocrisy were they, that a local dog catcher’s race would see more highbrow performance. For any one of these pathetic exercises in mindless blathering and needless media coverage, it wouldn’t be hard to pick out losers (and by “losers” I don’t mean who won or lost any of these alleged “debates.”)

But for the title of all-time hypocrite, the current award has to go to the nutcase who’s risen to the current top-tier challenge to Mitt Romney. Yes, that would be former Senator Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania. Now, many of you may know Mr. Santorum (or Mr. “Sanitarium”, as I prefer,) as the far-right evangelical conservative, who likes to trot around the country preaching that “Satan is attacking the United States” (yes, that’s a direct quote. Click here if you don’t believe me.) No less a cerebral giant than Sarah Palin rushed to Santorum’s defense, blaming the “lame-stream media” for getting “all wee-weed up.” Imagine the deep thinking process involved in that profound comment. Now, that’s intelligence on display.

While I thoroughly understand that Mr. Santorum’s delusions – I mean, opinions – can result when anyone misplaces his medication, his tirades don’t stop with speeches about the Prince of Darkness. No, they go to former Presidents, too. Even a President who was murdered in office.

Continue reading

|

In a decision that has somewhat clarified the scope of social host liability, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) earlier this week issued a decision that absolved parents from liability where injuries result from a party their underage children hosted, but did not supply alcohol at. Social host liability is the body of tort law that determines if an owner of private property is liable for Massachusetts accidents and injuries that result from the conduct of a person who became intoxicated at the host’s premises.

I’ve previously blogged about on the subject of alcohol liability, in circumstances where a defendant is a business establishment such as a restaurant or bar. That area of law is known as Massachusetts Dram Shop liability or Massachusetts liquor liability. However, when the defendant is not a commercial business but is instead a homeowner who hosted a party or event at which alcohol was served and injuries were caused by a person who became intoxicated at the event, that form of liability is known as “Massachusetts social host liability.” This liability originates from certain laws which state that social hosts who provide alcohol to their guests can be held legally responsible for the injuries or harm that may result to another person if alcohol has been provided negligently to someone attending the function. Previously, it has been clear that if someone hosted a social gathering at their residence, where alcohol was excessively consumed by a person, and the intoxicated person later caused injury to an innocent party, liability attached to the event host.

This most recent decision has somewhat narrowed that doctrine. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that underage persons who host underage drinking parties, yet do not directly supply the alcohol, cannot be held liable if someone attending the party is later injured due to resulting intoxication. The court also relieved parents or owners of the property where the part took place of any liability, if they did not know that the party was being held, and did not play any role in providing the alcohol that was consumed.

Continue reading

|

In my previous post on this subject, I wrote of a case now pending in Middlesex Superior Court against Wal-Mart Corp., following the electrocution death of a laborer at its Walpole, Massachusetts store. In my previous post, I spoke briefly about the tangled web of business entities that Wal-Mart apparently used in this project, and in almost all its construction and renovation projects. I’ll examine that more at length here.

According to published reports, Walmart hired a general contractor by the name of Kekoka Construction to oversee the renovation project at its Walpole store. Kekoka Construction is based in Texas. Kekoka Construction hired a Massachusetts-based construction supervisor and apparently paid him $11,000.00 to “pull” (obtain) a building permit from the Town of Walpole, after which he did almost nothing in terms of construction site supervision of the project. This practice is otherwise referred to as hiring a “straw”, whose sole function is to do something formal or official like pulling a building permit, and then disappear from view. Walmart’s general contractor, Kekoka Construction, then apparently hired an electrical subcontractor, a company named T&M Electrical of Arkansas. T&M Electrical, then apparently hired its own “straw”, a Connecticut man with a Massachusetts’ electrician’s license, to pull electrical work permits from the Town of Walpole. Stare investigators have reportedly concluded that this man, who as the person obtaining the electrical permits was responsible for overseeing the actual electrical work, was never seen at the worksite. Mr. Santos was hired along with other workers by another subcontractor, Italo Masonry.

Sound confusing enough yet? It gets even more so: It turns out that Walmart’s general contractor, Kekoka Construction, was formed about ten years ago by Walmart solely for the purpose of supervising construction at Walmart sites. In other words, Kekoka Construction is a creation of Walmart; an “arm” of it. Legally speaking, this is referred to as a “corporate alter ego.” Largely for this reason, the attorney representing the family of the victim who was killed at the Walpole site, is not only suing the electrical subcontractor and various related parties, but is also suing Walmart directly. As a Boston, Massachusetts construction site accident attorney, I welcome this approach. Walmart was apparently at the top of this pyramid, and though they have apparently taken deft steps to separate Kekoka Construction from itself in a formal, technical sense, as a Dedham, Massachusetts accident attorney, I think a strong legal argument can be made here that the two companies were essentially one for the purposes of this case. Achieving this legal objective in litigation is called “piercing the corporate veil,” and with good reason: Huge corporations like Wal-Mart try to hide their real actions all the time by setting up other corporate entities to carry out business objectives that for various legal and public relations reasons they themselves don’t want to be “out in front” on. I wish the attorney for Mr. Santos’ family the best of luck in this fight. It won’t be an easy one, but corporations like Wal-Mart – and the other defendants involved as well – need to be made to pay for the dangerous and unethical games that were apparently played here.

Continue reading

|

A case that’s now pending in Middlesex Superior Court involving the death of a construction worker helping to renovate a Walmart in Walpole, Massachusetts illustrates the serious dangers facing many Massachusetts construction site workers.

As a Boston, Massachusetts construction site accident lawyer, I know how awful some of these injuries can be, and the lifelong effects they can leave on the victims of these accidents. The Walpole Walmart case makes it gravely clear just how dangerous these Massachusetts construction site injuries can be: Death. But in addition to this fact, the case also makes clear just how tangled the lines of corporate involvement and responsibility can be, and just how challenging it can be on a legal level, to hold the responsible parties accountable. In no small part, this is because there are typically multiple corporate parties involved in a Massachusetts construction site accident: These typically include: 1) The owner of the real estate; 2) The retail tenant or the developer; 3) A general contractor; and 4) multiple subcontractors.

In the case of the death that resulted at the Walpole Walmart, this tangled web was no exception. The victim who died from electrocution, Romulo de Oliveira Santos of Brazil, was working with a masonry crew to tear down a cement wall, when he was electrocuted. But it was several actions and events preceding the day that Mr. Santos was killed, that brought his life to an end. I’ll address those events in my next post on this subject.

|

A woman in Burlington, Massachusetts has filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that her uncle raped her repeatedly as a child, then also subjected her to sexual abuse from as many as 10 other men.

The lawsuit was filed this past week in Middlesex Superior Court. It alleges that Domenic A. Previte Jr. of Waltham, Massachusetts committed the abuse. Furthermore, it states that Previte later confessed to the crime of rape, in a letter to his niece that he allegedly signed. In the letter, Previte reportedly said things such as “I admired and respected you and loved you as my own daughter…Somehow things got twisted…I had confused my love for you with sex.” Whether this is true or not, of course, remains to be seen. The niece, Rosanne Sliney, now 48, claims that her family pressured her to execute a document in 1991 that released her uncle, Previte, from any responsibility, in exchange for a payment from him in the amount of $26,500. Sliney now alleges that she did not understand the meaning of the document, because she signed it when she was in her late twenties, and had a damaged emotional condition due to the abuse. She claims the abuse started when she was five years old and it continued up until she was 14. Sliney says she had been told that Previte would provide for her for the rest of her life, but the lawsuit against him states that Previte has failed to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills related to Sliney’s mental-health problems stemming from the abuse.

Civil lawsuits like these, which seek damages for the harm and emotional injuries caused as the result of rape or sexual assaults that may have occurred years in the past, illustrate the increasingly long arm of the law. Statutes of Limitations, which bar many types of legal actions after a certain number of years has passed from when the act occurred, can be very complicated. As a Massachusetts sex abuse victims attorney, I can tell my readers that a legal doctrine called the “discovery rule,” has resulted in extending the statute of limitations for these types of cases. Whether or not this mechanism will apply in any particular case can be a complex matter and can only be answered following a thorough analysis of the case facts.

Continue reading