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

|

In a type of case that is a hybrid between a Massachusetts personal injury suit and a civil rights claim, the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts has agreed to pay a 17 year-old girl $100,000 in damages to settle a suit against the city alleging excessive use of force, and police brutality.

Esther Durex, then 16 years old at the time of the incident on October 12 2008, said she was beaten by police after leaving a party on that date last year. The settlement was negotiated with the city by the youth’s attorney, and was approved recently by Judge Robert Kane of Fall River Superior Court. Reportedly, the settlement will be paid by the city’s insurance company. The settlement required a judge’s approval because the plaintiff is a minor.

Durex’s attorney, David Cass, calling her a “model student,” said the Attleboro High School senior was stopped and eventually arrested by police after leaving a party on the date in question. He said his client was struck by officers with clubs in the head, legs and arms. Durex suffered a broken wrist in the incident. The victim incurred approximately $2,700 in medical bills and has had to receive psychological counseling as a result of the incident, according to her attorney.

Continue reading

|

I’ve been traveling out of office for a couple of weeks, and I haven’t posted anything for too long – my apologies to my loyal readers. Today, I want to send this brief message: I’ve been given a lot of good things in this life. I’ve had my share of suffering and personal losses, also, but I am grateful for what I have. Most importantly, for the gift of my beautiful wife (who had a birthday yesterday,) and for those I am close to. We are all at different places in life, and we all have different blessings and burdens. But I think we can all agree that, unfortunately, there are always those who have less than we do, and that we can all be grateful to varying degrees for what we have in life. Debbi and I are blessed to be here in Hawaii over Thanksgiving, and while this is a beautiful place, it is also marked by a very high cost of living, and by the sadness of too much poverty for too many who live and work here. We hope we can do our part to leave this place having extended some kindness and benevolence to those who live here, especially on Thanksgiving Day during our visit.

I passed a Buddhist statuary today, and a particular contemplation struck me as important: “When Wishes Are Few The Heart Is Happy.” That is a tall order in a world dominated by a consumerist-mentality and by nonstop messages of “Buy, Get, Acquire.” But these age-old words are important to remember, or it becomes hard to be grateful for anything.

And so I give thanks for the blessings I have, including my loyal readers, my friends and my clients.

Continue reading

|

Massachusetts dog bite cases just got a little easier to bring in court and to win, at least those involving injuries caused by pit bull terriers. That’s good news for victims of these horrible attacks, which can scar a person for life not only physically, but in cases involving children and other vulnerable victims, emotionally as well.

A recent ruling by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in the case of Nutt v. Florio, has held that in future dog bite cases involving pit bull terriers, plaintiffs will no longer have to first demonstrate that the attacking dog had a “vicious propensity,” or that it had previously attacked others, before being allowed to argue the case before a jury. Up until now, when bringing suit against a defendant for injuries suffered as the result of a dog bite or dog attack, plaintiffs in Massachusetts needed to first make an evidentiary showing that the defendant “knew or should have known” that the dog had “vicious propensities” or that it had attacked other persons previously. In these types of cases, the defendant is usually either the owner of the dog, the owner of a house where the dog was kept, or the landlord of a building where a tenant kept the dog. When such cases have been brought in the past in Massachusetts, the defendant’s attorney (who, in almost all cases, is actually the attorney representing the liability insurance company that insures the defendant through either a property owner’s or automobile owner’s liability policy) will review the plaintiff’s complaint that has been filed in court. If the defendant’s attorney sees that there is little evidence to support the claim that the defendant knew or should have known that the dog in question had either vicious propensities or had attacked others in the past, the defense will file what is known as a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” This motion is designed to get the case dismissed before trial, because up to present in Massachusetts, a plaintiff had to show that the defendant knew the dog displayed vicious propensities, or knew that it had attacked others previously, in order to bring a case before a judge or jury.

With this Appeals Court ruling, that requirement has now been eliminated – for cases involving attacks by pit bulls. In this case, the court found that a landlord could be held liable for injuries suffered by a 10-year-old boy injured by a pit bull attack, even though the dog had never before attacked anyone, the landlord was not aware of any previous aggressive behavior by the dog, and even though the landlord had no particular knowledge about the controversial breed’s propensities. This ruling means that, for cases alleging attacks and/or injuries caused by pit bulls, injured victims (plaintiffs) will no longer have to show that the defendant either knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities prior to the attack that caused the plaintiff’s injuries, in order to argue the case before a jury. It means that a jury will be allowed to hear that this breed of dog is known to be especially aggressive, and that they will apply ordinary standards of negligence in deciding whether a defendant should be held liable for a plaintiff’ injuries. (Because, of course, a lawsuit involving a dog bite is a negligence action alleging personal injuries.)

Continue reading

|

In my previous post on this topic, I discussed a recent case involving Massachusetts liquor liability, and what that kind of case consists of. Now I’ll explain why a bar or restaurant can be held liable if a patron who becomes intoxicated at that restaurant, later injures someone as a result of that intoxication.

Legal liability in a case like this arises from the negligence of restaurant management in failing to adequately hire, train, and monitor the skills and activities of its servers and/or wait staff who serve alcoholic beverages. If the restaurant management in this case had properly hired, monitored and supervised the waitress involved, they would have seen that this waitress was deliberately ignoring the restaurant’s legal duty to spot and prevent patrons from being served too much alcohol, and the resulting Massachusetts car accident and injuries suffered by the plaintiffs here, would not have occurred. The legal argument used by this plaintiff (and similar plainitffs,) is that the restaurant management: 1) Had a legal duty to prevent patrons from becoming overly-intoxicated at its establishment (accomplished through appropriate enforcement of the highly effective TIPS program); 2) That the restaurant management “knew or should have known” that if it did not hire adequate personnel and monitor its wait staff for compliance with this program, one or more patrons would become excessively intoxicated and very possibly cause injuries to third parties – in essence, that the accident was “foreseeable”; 3) That such an accident or injuries did occur, and that it occurred due to the intoxication of that customer; and 4) That the plaintiff(s) suffered damages as a result.

As to exactly how a skilled plaintiff’s attorney proves to a jury that negligence occurred, a variety of techniques can be used (depending, of course, on the expertise level of the attorney representing you.) In this case, the attorney for the plaintiffs was prepared to call an expert witness – a medical biochemist – to testify as to what the expected – and observable – signs and symptoms of intoxication would have been in this case, and the plaintiff was also prepared to call an expert consultant who was a certified TIPS trainer. That expert would have testified that this bar’s policies and procedures in monitoring and enforcing the TIPS program were lax and inadequate. Further, as to evidence, the plaintiff’s attorneys fought very hard to find and secure the bar receipt for the customer who later engaged in drunk driving and caused this accident, which the restaurant did everything they could to hide. That receipt showed that the waitress involved, received a $100 tip for a $50 bar tab from the defendant driver. This was key to establishing the restaurant’s negligence in failing to monitor the skill level and TIPS enforcement pattern of this waitress. If a jury ever saw this receipt, and saw the financial ‘reward’ given to this waitress for over-serving this drunk driver, it would have been devastating to the defense and to the restaurant.

Continue reading

|

A recent case settlement in the area of liquor liability, shows that despite improvement in recent years, there are still bars and restaurants that continue to negligently serve alcohol to intoxicated patrons, when they clearly shouldn’t be doing so.

This recent case involved serious injuries that two female drivers sustained in a Massachusetts car accident when the pickup truck they were traveling in on Interstate 95, was rammed from behind by a drunk driver. The vehicle in which the two plaintiffs were driving was caused to roll over several times before coming to rest on its side, and the occupants sustained serious injuries. The driver of the pickup, 29, suffered multiple rib fractures. The 32-year-old passenger suffered a severe open fracture of her right tibia and fibula, and required several surgeries for the surgical implantation of a metal rod. The offending driver was arrested at the scene, but refused a breathalyzer test, and therefore, no blood alcohol test was resultantly available to introduce as evidence that this driver was intoxcated at the time of the accident, at either the criminal, or civil trial which the plaintiffs instituted against the defendant for monetary damages. Notwithstanding, at deposition during the litigation of the civil case, (note: for obvious reasons, this defendant never would have admitted the following at his criminal trial, but in the civil trial, it was the bar that was the party really “on the hook” not him,) the defendant driver testified that he has consumed approximately 12 beers and four shots of liquor at the bar he was drinking at on the evening in question. That’s damaging evidence enough of negligence against the bar, but it gets worse: Evidence in the form of bar receipts – which the bar did its best to conceal from the plaintiffs’ attorney – showed that the waitress who served the defendant all these drinks, was given a $100 tip for doing so (in other words, for not “shutting off” the customer).

So where does this liability for personal injuires come from, what is it called, and why should the bar owners be held liable for the actions of an irresponsible and greedy waitress? All good questions. First, this type of civil liability – popularly known as liquor liability but known within the legal profession as “Dram Shop Liability” (the term comes from historical case law) – arises from the legal duty that a restaurant, bar or tavern owner owes to its patrons as well as to members of the general public, to train, supervise and monitor its bartenders and wait staff in the responsible practice of serving alcohol. That training, almost universally provided under an industry program known as TIPS (for Training for Intervention ProcedureS.) TIPS is a nationwide program used almost universally in the restaurant and bar industries, to educate and train servers and wait staff in the responsible service, sale, and consumption of alcohol. The whole point is designed to prevent negligence and resulting personal injuries that may follow from patrons becoming overly intoxicated.

Continue reading

|

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.

Continue reading

|

In a case that one can only hope will produce civil justice (vs. the criminal justice that’s already been obtained,) the parents of a 16-year-old Massachusetts murder victim have filed a $1 million lawsuit against her killer and his mother.

Joshua C. Whitaker, 23, was sentenced to life in the maximum security prison in Shirley, Massachusetts, after being convicted of the grisly murder of Kelsea L. Owens, who was murdered in Hampden, Massachusetts on August 15 2006. At his trial, Whitaker’s defense lawyer admitted to jurors that Whitaker bludgeoned Owens with pruning shears, a log and a set of dumbbells. Whitaker admitted to a paramedic: “I’m a murderer.” Testimony at the defendant’s murder trial established that Whitaker’s mother, Linda Whitaker, is the person who initially called police to report “a girl being assaulted and missing.”

Now, a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed in Hampden Superior Court against the Whitakers. The suit alleges that Joshua Whitaker had a “long history of violent and deviant behavior,” and centrally, claims that Whitaker’s mother, who he lived with, Linda Whitaker, knew or should have known about her son’s violent personality, and undertaken efforts or measures to monitor or control it. The Owens’ lawsuit alleges that Joshua Whitaker had previously been undergoing psychiatric treatment for violent tendencies, that his mother Linda Whitaker knew this, that she was at home at the time of the murder, and that she should have known her son had not been complying with his psychiatric treatment and medication regimen for a considerable period of time prior to the murder. In legal parlance, the suit alleges that “Linda Whitaker negligently and carelessly failed to properly monitor, supervise and observe Joshua Whitaker, who she knew … had a history of violent and deviant behavior.” The complaint also accuses the Whitakers of “conscious pain and suffering” and infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading

|

In my previous posts on this multi-part subject of tort reform, I discussed what tort reform is, who is behind it, and what it would do to the average Massachusetts citizen, in taking away your legal right to recover for injuries you’ve suffered because of someone else’s negligence.

Now I’ll address the twisted story of what the insurance industry uses as ‘Exhibit A’ when they argue for tort reform: The famous “McDonald’s Coffee Case”. You’ll see that what this case is really “Exhibit A” for, is not telling the full story or reporting all the facts, which results in complete disinformation. (Otherwise known as “spin.”)

This is the case of Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Corp. Stella Leibeck was a 79 year-old grandmother in New Mexico, who suffered third degree burns over her legs and lower abdomen after she purchased coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through, back in 1992. Liebeck sued McDonald’s for producing coffee that was so hot it couldn’t be handled safely, never mind actually consumed safely. This type of case is known as a Product Liability suit. A jury awarded her $160,000 in damages, which reflected their determination that Ms. Liebeck was 20 per cent at fault for the accident (she spilled the coffee on herself.)

Continue reading

|

In my previous post on this topic – “tort reform” – I explained how and where the misinformation campaign of tort reform was developed: the liability insurance industry. I also explained that this campaign has been so successful, that a national bar association that has existed for over 60 years, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) apparently felt that the public perception of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers had been so damaged by this misinformation campaign, and public opinion of trial lawyers had sunk so low as a result, that it actually decided to change its name to the “American Association for Justice” (AAJ.) If you click on the link for AAJ, you will notice that the Home Page lists the AAJ as “Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA,) due to the insistence of many trial lawyers who are proud of ATLA’s name.

The campaign for tort reform has taken a thousand stories of the civil jury system, and twisted them like a pretzel to portray a civil liability system that is “out of control”, awarding “outrageous jury verdicts” to “questionable plaintiffs”. All of this, of course, reflects the main objective of the insurance industry’s campaign, which is to frighten people into believing that their liability insurance premiums – whether for automobile insurance, homeowners’ insurance, medical malpractice coverage, municipal liability, corporate liability or any kind of liability insurance offered in this country – are high because of a “lawsuit crisis”, caused by “greedy tort lawyers.” Why does the liability insurance industry want to do this? Why are they spending tens of millions of policyholders’ dollars to create public pressure to pass tort reform legislation wherever they can?

A simple one-word answer, and I know you’ve all heard it before: Money. You see, (here’s a link to a good book explaining this,) “tort reform” basically dismantles the civil jury system – the system that decides whether a person or company is liable for someone else’s injuries, and if so how much should be paid to compensate the victim of those injuries. What this “reform” does, is take away your legal rights to sue a defendant in court for your injuries, such as a car accident, a dog bite, or a slip and fall injury. And if “reform” passes? If you’re still lucky enough to be able to file a suit against someone who has injured you, the damages that you would have received earlier (before “reform”) would be capped, or limited to a maximum amount. And if that amount is not enough to compensate you for perhaps lifelong injuries you might have suffered, such as in a medical malpractice case or nursing home neglect or abuse case? Tough. You’d be out of legal options, out of luck, and out of money.

Continue reading

|

Before I started practicing law twenty years ago as a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, I worked as Public Affairs Counsel (lobbyist) and Media Spokesperson for the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys. MATA is the state bar association for plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers (lawyers who represent injury victims who have been harmed due to someone else’s negligence,) and is the state affiliate of the American Association for Justice. Here is where this story gets a little interesting: The AAJ used to be known for many, many years as the “American Association of Trial Lawyers of America” – ATLA – but several years ago, they changed their name to the “American Association for Justice”, after decades of being widely known as ATLA. Care to take a guess why the name change?

My readers who follow the issue of tort reform will know the answer. And that answer, quite sadly, is this: Polls and study groups had indicated that the public image of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers (or tort lawyers,) had sunk so low in the public’s mind, that ATLA felt that they needed to take the words “trial lawyers” out of their name. (A disclaimer: I do not speak here for the AAJ, and I do not know for an indisputable “fact” that this was the reason the association changed its name, but most plaintiffs’ trial lawyers would privately tell you, that was the reason.) And prey tell, why had the public’s perception and public opinion of trial lawyers reportedly sunk so low as to prompt this name change? Is what the members of my profession do so un-admired, so low, that a national bar association would want to change its name to take out the words “trial lawyers”? Is what we as trial lawyers do in helping injury victims recover a fair measure of compensation and justice from the negligent party who caused their injuries so shameful, so disreputable? Is fighting insurance companies who would be only too glad to offer someone who has been injured, crumbs for financial compensation, so distasteful?

The answer to all these questions is, obviously, a resounding “No.” So why, then, has the perception of a once-admired and esteemed profession been so defamed, so damaged? The answer comes down to three words: liability insurance companies. More accurately, two words: tort reform. You see, for almost every damages award or settlement that is paid in a personal injury or tort case, there is an insurance company that pays that award or settlement amount on behalf of the defendant that is found to be responsible (legally liable) for those damages. Whether the case involves a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident, a premises liability, or a medical malpractice case, 99% of the time, an insurance company – who has been paid premiums by the defendant (its policyholder) to provide that very coverage – pays the award or settlement. And guess what? Despite the fact that liability insurance companies are in business to do just that – pay for damages when their insured negligently harms someone – they don’t like paying out money. Of course, these are the very companies, like AIG, that took billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars in bailout money.

So, what do you when you’re the liability insurance industry (comprised of companies like AIG,) and you don’t like paying for the negligent acts of your customers? Well, one way is to adopt an aggressive trial approach and combative legal strategy toward every personal injury claim that comes before you, and refuse to pay almost anything but the smallest sum, but that’s a piecemeal approach. No, the liability insurance industry knew that a much larger-scale attack would be needed to pad their profits even more – a strategy that wouldn’t just address cases on an individual basis – but on a societal, national level.

Enter the concept and campaign for “tort reform”. What’s that? A coordinated, sophisticated, public relations misinformation campaign, specifically designed to convince all manner of people and business sectors that the reason their insurance premiums are so high, is “frivolous lawsuits”, “runaway jury verdicts” and “greedy tort lawyers.” The objective: Stoke public anger toward tort lawyers. Make every car & motor vehicle owner, every home owner, every municipality, every doctor, every hospital, every charity, every business from a mom-and-pop store to Microsoft Corporation, think that their high insurance premiums are due to a “lawsuit crisis.” Bring this misinformation and smear campaign to such a fever pitch that even the mention of the words “trial lawyer” will prompt resentment and distaste.

And that’s why such a distinguished bar association like ATLA, apparently felt it was forced to change its name, taking out the words “trial lawyers.”

As a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer who used to specialize in responding to the media about this misinformation, I can assure you that this campaign has been, and continues to be, one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the American public in decades, and I’ll discuss ‘Exhibit A’ in that evidence file, in my next post.
Continue reading