Boston Car Accident Attorney News – Published by Boston, Massachusetts Car Accident Lawyer
Boston Car Accident Attorney News
Across Boston, hit and run accidents take many different forms. Often, drivers of motor vehicles hit a pedestrian and proceed to drive, hoping to attempt to avoid liability. In other cases, one vehicle strikes another and flees the scene without stopping to provide help or exchange information. In most circumstances, hit and run collisions leave victims funked, facing property harm and potentially life-altering injuries. However, there are steps to take that will help victims secure compensation for their damages and injuries resulting from the accident.
Hit and run accidents carry potential criminal and civil penalties for those who have caused the collision and left the scene of the accident. Massachusetts law requires drivers to provide information to injured individuals before leaving the scene of the accident. According to law, there are different crimes associated with hit and run collisions, depending on whether property harm, private injuries, or death resulted from the crash.
According to the statute, there is an affirmative duty to those who operate motor vehicles. Failing to stop after a collision can bring dire consequences. Following a crash, or even a minor collision, the driver must stop and provide information to everyone. In fact, both parties involved in the accident have a legal obligation to remain at the scene and to ensure that if anyone requires assistance and medical care, they receive it.
Two Crucial Legal Elements in Boston Car Accident Claims
After suffering injuries in a car accident in Boston or the surrounding areas, individuals have three years to file a case in court, according to Massachusetts law. This significant law, called the “statute of limitations,” is rigorously interpreted by courts, and if a case is not filed within this period of time, the plaintiff may be prevented from bringing it to court. However, it is significant to note that this statute of limitations does not affect when an individual may file their insurance claim.
Statutes of limitations are determined by the “window” during which the cause of activity accrues. Car accident injuries are held to have accrued as of the date of the injury or the date of the collision. Even victims with strong claims for compensation will be prevented from bringing a case after these three years have passed. For victims pursuing a claim against a government entity, claims must be filed within thirty days of an accident.
Another significant legal rule that may affect an individual’s capability to recover damages following a car accident is the doctrine of comparative fault. In terms of liability, the comparative negligence law makes it significant for victims not to admit fault when providing the police with statements. This is because comparative negligence can potentially affect the capability of an injured car accident victim to recover damages in a legal claim against another involved party.
Assessing Fault in Boston Car Accident Lawsuits
Determining liability, or legal fault, for an accident is central to a private injury claim for damages. Accident victims can hold careless drivers accountable for their deeds, but as plaintiffs in a private injury claim, they carry the legal cargo of proving fault. Many Boston car accident cases are based on a negligence theory of law, which asserts that a driver breached their duty of care to operate their vehicle securely, and this breach directly caused the accident and resulting harm.
To be at fault in a car accident, according to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance and the Code of Municipal Regulations (CMR), a driver must be at least fifty one percent responsible for causing an accident. This requirement is based upon Massachusetts’ comparative negligence doctrine. When a victim plaintiff is determined to be at fault for an accident, this fault must not be fifty one percent or more, or they will not recover damages. Provided that the plaintiff is less than fifty one percent at fault, they will be able to recover damages, diminished by the amount of their fault.
The CMR includes standards of fault that are determinative or that tend to prove that a driver is more than fifty percent at fault for the accident. Rear end collisions are included in this section, as are accidents that result when an operator fails to signal before turning or switching lanes, causing an accident. Backover accidents, when the driver has been in the process of reversing their vehicle and collides with another vehicle, is a circumstance that indicates the driver is more than fifty percent at fault.
Boston Taxi Driver Crashes into Pedestrians Outside Logan Airport After Losing Control of Car
A Boston car accident attorney is ready to represent those harmed by the negligent conduct of another driver. Recently, 1o people suffered injuries when a taxi driver plowed into them outside Logan International Airport. According to a news report, the incident reflected driver error, rather than terrorist intentions. The driver mentioned that instead of hitting the brake, he accidentally accelerated into the victims. The victims were mostly other taxi drivers, who had taken a break to socialize.
While in this case, the at-fault driver admitted that he had erred, in some car accident lawsuits, the victims will have to prove liability, or legal fault, in order to recover damages in a private injury claim. In the case of the taxi driver, he admitted that he had not intended to crash into the victims. Nevertheless, the victims have the right to pursue legal damages against him for their injuries and medical costs.
Proving fault in a car accident, according to Massachusetts law, often requires demonstrating that the other driver was negligent. Negligence is a failure to meet a legal duty of care. All drivers owe others the duty to avoid foreseeable harm and to operate their vehicle as other drivers would under similar circumstances. To successfully display negligence, the plaintiff would showcase that the defendant driver breached their duty of care, and this breach directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Seeking Monetary Damages after a Boston Rear-End Vehicle Collision
When a vehicle collision occurs, it may be due to the negligence of a driver. Negligence forms the legal theory of many private injury claims, and victims can recover damages they have suffered for serious injuries after proving the legal fault of the other driver. To demonstrate negligence, the plaintiff victim would display that the defendant driver owed them a duty of care, breached this duty, and directly caused their resulting injuries and harm.
According to the Commonwealth’s model civil jury instructions, negligence is defined as the failure to use the degree of care that a reasonable and prudent person would use, under similar circumstances, to prevent an accident. Reasonable care is the level of attention that others would exercise in similar situations. In the case of a driver breaching a duty of care, there are a diversity of ways that this breach can take place.
Car Accidents Cause High Number of Child Deaths; Massachusetts Comparative Negligence Law May Reduce Recovery When Seatbelts Not Used
A latest report issued by the Fresh York Times indicates that for children under the age of 15, the most common cause of death is unintentional injuries resulting from car accidents. In the majority of fatal crashes, children were not wearing safety belts. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided statistics that supported the research and indicated that from state to state, there were variations in children’s deaths.
In Massachusetts, for example, inbetween two thousand ten and 2014, there were 0.25 deaths per 100,000 children, as compared to Trio.23 per 100,000 in Mississippi. In Mississippi, of the ninety nine children who died in a car accident during the probe period, fifty six were not wearing seatbelts or were improperly restrained. Additionally, the explore indicated that more deaths occurred on roads that were classified as rural by the Federal Highway Administration. The reasons for this vary and may include the distance to trauma centers, poor lighting on roads, and other factors.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals Finds Insurance Company Had Not Engaged in Unfair Settlement Practices Following Rear-End Collision
Recently, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals analyzed whether an automobile insurance company had engaged in unfair practices regarding a car accident victim’s claim for damages. The plaintiff in this case had been awarded a substantial jury verdict of $818,000 for his individual injury claim against the driver who rear-ended his vehicle. The insurer had suggested to lodge for $25,000 and $60,000, both rejected by the plaintiff. In the current lawsuit, the plaintiff had argued that the insurer violated Massachusetts law when treating his private injury claim. In essence, the issue was whether the insurer had refused to pay the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.
The facts of this case indicate that the plaintiff worked as a tow truck operator and had been assisting a vehicle stuck in a snow drift. While inwards his tow truck, on the side of the road, another driver rear-ended his truck. He alleged that he was injured and brought a private injury claim against the driver. The driver’s insurance company attempted to gather information from the plaintiff regarding his injuries, but evidently there remained doubt concerning his bodily injury claims.
Massachusetts Statute Helps Plaintiffs Prove Fault Through Car Registration But Does Not Switch Requirement of Proving Elements of Claim Following Car Crash
According to Massachusetts law, in an injury claim following a car accident, evidence that the car involved in the collision was registered to the defendant is pri ma facie evidence it was being operated and managed by someone for whom the defendant was legally responsible. At issue in an appeal before a Massachusetts appellate court was how much weight to afford this statute in proving negligence, particularly when the registered holder of a car involved in a crash had granted permission to the driver to use the car. The court held that permission did not mean that the possessor had the right to control the driver’s use of the car, especially when she was completing individual errands.
In a collision that was determined at trial to be an accident and not to have involved the negligence of the defendant, the lower court found the proprietor of the vehicle involved was not responsible for property harm. Here, the driver had struck the plaintiff’s traffic signal and arm while borrowing the defendant’s car to run individual errands. According to the trial court, the car holder had not permitted the driver the use of the car, but his brother had done so. The lower court found that the driver had not been acting as the agent of the car possessor, nor was she advancing his interests at the time of the collision. The lower court entered judgment for the defendant, the holder of the car.
Massachusetts Court Finds Insurance Company Did Not Engage in Unfair Claim Settlement Practices After Motor Vehicle Collision
A Massachusetts court recently held that an automobile insurance company had not engaged in unfair claim settlement practices, in disturbance of state law, when it conditioned a payment of its policy limit on a release of all claims against its insureds. Following a one-vehicle accident in Swampscott, an injured passenger brought negligence claims against the driver and his employer, since the vehicle had b een rented in the driver’s capacity as an employee. An automobile insurance compa ny defended both the driver and the company against allegations of negligence, specifically arguing that excessive speed caused the driver to crash into a wall after losing control of the vehicle.
In attempting to lodge the claimant’s negligence claims, the insurance company rejected an suggest by the passenger/claimant to release the insurer from further claims in exchange for the $1 million insurance policy limit. The insurer contended that paying the limit without a release of their insureds could potentially expose them to bad faith claims.
The claimant then alleged that by failing to investigate and make an equitable settlement suggest, the insurer was making a voluntary and knowing disturbance of Massachusetts law. The insurance company relied upon case law and specifically Lazaris v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., four hundred twenty eight Mass. Five hundred two (1998), to make clear that it could condition paying the policy limit on receiving a release of its insureds.
Massachusetts Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff; Automobile Insurance Company May Have Negligently Failed to Safeguard His Individual Information Regarding Insurance Claim Following Accident
In an appeal involving an employer’s duty to safeguard confidential information, the Massachusetts Court of Appeal held that a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an automobile insurance company should be vaca ted. The lower court had found that the plaintiff had not met his duty of showcasing the company’s negligence in safeguarding his confidential information following a vehicle collision. An employee of the insurance company had access to the plaintiff’s information and provided it to her beau, who intimidated the plaintiff, as a witness to the crash.
The plaintiff brought a case against the automobile insurance company, and a lower court dismissed four of his five claims. The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment on his negligent failure to safeguard private information claim. In this case, the facts indicated that an employee of the insurer had access to confidential data through work that included records maintained by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Boston Car Accident Attorney News – Published by Boston, Massachusetts Car Accident Lawyer
Boston Car Accident Attorney News
Across Boston, hit and run accidents take many different forms. Often, drivers of motor vehicles hit a pedestrian and proceed to drive, hoping to attempt to avoid liability. In other cases, one vehicle strikes another and flees the scene without stopping to provide help or exchange information. In most circumstances, hit and run collisions leave victims panicked, facing property harm and potentially life-altering injuries. However, there are steps to take that will help victims secure compensation for their damages and injuries resulting from the accident.
Hit and run accidents carry potential criminal and civil penalties for those who have caused the collision and left the scene of the accident. Massachusetts law requires drivers to provide information to injured individuals before leaving the scene of the accident. According to law, there are different crimes associated with hit and run collisions, depending on whether property harm, individual injuries, or death resulted from the crash.
According to the statute, there is an affirmative duty to those who operate motor vehicles. Failing to stop after a collision can bring dire consequences. Following a crash, or even a minor collision, the driver must stop and provide information to everyone. In fact, both parties involved in the accident have a legal obligation to remain at the scene and to ensure that if anyone requires assistance and medical care, they receive it.
Two Crucial Legal Elements in Boston Car Accident Claims
After suffering injuries in a car accident in Boston or the surrounding areas, individuals have three years to file a case in court, according to Massachusetts law. This significant law, called the “statute of limitations,” is rigorously interpreted by courts, and if a case is not filed within this period of time, the plaintiff may be prevented from bringing it to court. However, it is significant to note that this statute of limitations does not affect when an individual may file their insurance claim.
Statutes of limitations are determined by the “window” during which the cause of activity accrues. Car accident injuries are held to have accrued as of the date of the injury or the date of the collision. Even victims with strong claims for compensation will be prevented from bringing a case after these three years have passed. For victims pursuing a claim against a government entity, claims must be filed within thirty days of an accident.
Another significant legal rule that may affect an individual’s capability to recover damages following a car accident is the doctrine of comparative fault. In terms of liability, the comparative negligence law makes it significant for victims not to admit fault when providing the police with statements. This is because comparative negligence can potentially affect the capability of an injured car accident victim to recover damages in a legal claim against another involved party.
Assessing Fault in Boston Car Accident Lawsuits
Determining liability, or legal fault, for an accident is central to a individual injury claim for damages. Accident victims can hold careless drivers accountable for their deeds, but as plaintiffs in a individual injury claim, they carry the legal cargo of proving fault. Many Boston car accident cases are based on a negligence theory of law, which asserts that a driver breached their duty of care to operate their vehicle securely, and this breach directly caused the accident and resulting harm.
To be at fault in a car accident, according to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance and the Code of Municipal Regulations (CMR), a driver must be at least fifty one percent responsible for causing an accident. This requirement is based upon Massachusetts’ comparative negligence doctrine. When a victim plaintiff is determined to be at fault for an accident, this fault must not be fifty one percent or more, or they will not recover damages. Provided that the plaintiff is less than fifty one percent at fault, they will be able to recover damages, diminished by the amount of their fault.
The CMR includes standards of fault that are determinative or that tend to prove that a driver is more than fifty percent at fault for the accident. Rear end collisions are included in this section, as are accidents that result when an operator fails to signal before turning or switching lanes, causing an accident. Backover accidents, when the driver has been in the process of reversing their vehicle and collides with another vehicle, is a circumstance that indicates the driver is more than fifty percent at fault.
Boston Taxi Driver Crashes into Pedestrians Outside Logan Airport After Losing Control of Car
A Boston car accident attorney is ready to represent those harmed by the negligent conduct of another driver. Recently, 1o people suffered injuries when a taxi driver plowed into them outside Logan International Airport. According to a news report, the incident reflected driver error, rather than terrorist intentions. The driver mentioned that instead of hitting the brake, he accidentally accelerated into the victims. The victims were mostly other taxi drivers, who had taken a break to socialize.
While in this case, the at-fault driver admitted that he had erred, in some car accident lawsuits, the victims will have to prove liability, or legal fault, in order to recover damages in a private injury claim. In the case of the taxi driver, he admitted that he had not intended to crash into the victims. Nevertheless, the victims have the right to pursue legal damages against him for their injuries and medical costs.
Proving fault in a car accident, according to Massachusetts law, often requires demonstrating that the other driver was negligent. Negligence is a failure to meet a legal duty of care. All drivers owe others the duty to avoid foreseeable harm and to operate their vehicle as other drivers would under similar circumstances. To successfully showcase negligence, the plaintiff would showcase that the defendant driver breached their duty of care, and this breach directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Seeking Monetary Damages after a Boston Rear-End Vehicle Collision
When a vehicle collision occurs, it may be due to the negligence of a driver. Negligence forms the legal theory of many private injury claims, and victims can recover damages they have suffered for serious injuries after proving the legal fault of the other driver. To demonstrate negligence, the plaintiff victim would demonstrate that the defendant driver owed them a duty of care, breached this duty, and directly caused their resulting injuries and harm.
According to the Commonwealth’s model civil jury instructions, negligence is defined as the failure to use the degree of care that a reasonable and prudent person would use, under similar circumstances, to prevent an accident. Reasonable care is the level of attention that others would exercise in similar situations. In the case of a driver breaching a duty of care, there are a diversity of ways that this breach can take place.
Car Accidents Cause High Number of Child Deaths; Massachusetts Comparative Negligence Law May Reduce Recovery When Seatbelts Not Used
A latest report issued by the Fresh York Times indicates that for children under the age of 15, the most common cause of death is unintentional injuries resulting from car accidents. In the majority of fatal crashes, children were not wearing safety belts. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided statistics that supported the research and indicated that from state to state, there were variations in children’s deaths.
In Massachusetts, for example, inbetween two thousand ten and 2014, there were 0.25 deaths per 100,000 children, as compared to Trio.23 per 100,000 in Mississippi. In Mississippi, of the ninety nine children who died in a car accident during the explore period, fifty six were not wearing seatbelts or were improperly restrained. Additionally, the explore indicated that more deaths occurred on roads that were classified as rural by the Federal Highway Administration. The reasons for this vary and may include the distance to trauma centers, poor lighting on roads, and other factors.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals Finds Insurance Company Had Not Engaged in Unfair Settlement Practices Following Rear-End Collision
Recently, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals analyzed whether an automobile insurance company had engaged in unfair practices regarding a car accident victim’s claim for damages. The plaintiff in this case had been awarded a substantial jury verdict of $818,000 for his individual injury claim against the driver who rear-ended his vehicle. The insurer had suggested to lodge for $25,000 and $60,000, both rejected by the plaintiff. In the current lawsuit, the plaintiff had argued that the insurer violated Massachusetts law when treating his private injury claim. In essence, the issue was whether the insurer had refused to pay the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.
The facts of this case indicate that the plaintiff worked as a tow truck operator and had been assisting a vehicle stuck in a snow drift. While inwards his tow truck, on the side of the road, another driver rear-ended his truck. He alleged that he was injured and brought a private injury claim against the driver. The driver’s insurance company attempted to gather information from the plaintiff regarding his injuries, but evidently there remained doubt concerning his bodily injury claims.
Massachusetts Statute Helps Plaintiffs Prove Fault Through Car Registration But Does Not Switch Requirement of Proving Elements of Claim Following Car Crash
According to Massachusetts law, in an injury claim following a car accident, evidence that the car involved in the collision was registered to the defendant is pri ma facie evidence it was being operated and managed by someone for whom the defendant was legally responsible. At issue in an appeal before a Massachusetts appellate court was how much weight to afford this statute in proving negligence, particularly when the registered holder of a car involved in a crash had granted permission to the driver to use the car. The court held that permission did not mean that the proprietor had the right to control the driver’s use of the car, especially when she was completing private errands.
In a collision that was determined at trial to be an accident and not to have involved the negligence of the defendant, the lower court found the possessor of the vehicle involved was not responsible for property harm. Here, the driver had struck the plaintiff’s traffic signal and arm while borrowing the defendant’s car to run individual errands. According to the trial court, the car proprietor had not permitted the driver the use of the car, but his brother had done so. The lower court found that the driver had not been acting as the agent of the car holder, nor was she advancing his interests at the time of the collision. The lower court entered judgment for the defendant, the proprietor of the car.
Massachusetts Court Finds Insurance Company Did Not Engage in Unfair Claim Settlement Practices After Motor Vehicle Collision
A Massachusetts court recently held that an automobile insurance company had not engaged in unfair claim settlement practices, in disturbance of state law, when it conditioned a payment of its policy limit on a release of all claims against its insureds. Following a one-vehicle accident in Swampscott, an injured passenger brought negligence claims against the driver and his employer, since the vehicle had b een rented in the driver’s capacity as an employee. An automobile insurance compa ny defended both the driver and the company against allegations of negligence, specifically arguing that excessive speed caused the driver to crash into a wall after losing control of the vehicle.
In attempting to lodge the claimant’s negligence claims, the insurance company rejected an suggest by the passenger/claimant to release the insurer from further claims in exchange for the $1 million insurance policy limit. The insurer contended that paying the limit without a release of their insureds could potentially expose them to bad faith claims.
The claimant then alleged that by failing to investigate and make an equitable settlement suggest, the insurer was making a intentional and knowing disturbance of Massachusetts law. The insurance company relied upon case law and specifically Lazaris v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., four hundred twenty eight Mass. Five hundred two (1998), to make clear that it could condition paying the policy limit on receiving a release of its insureds.
Massachusetts Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff; Automobile Insurance Company May Have Negligently Failed to Safeguard His Private Information Regarding Insurance Claim Following Accident
In an appeal involving an employer’s duty to safeguard confidential information, the Massachusetts Court of Appeal held that a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an automobile insurance company should be vaca ted. The lower court had found that the plaintiff had not met his duty of demonstrating the company’s negligence in safeguarding his confidential information following a vehicle collision. An employee of the insurance company had access to the plaintiff’s information and provided it to her bf, who intimidated the plaintiff, as a witness to the crash.
The plaintiff brought a case against the automobile insurance company, and a lower court dismissed four of his five claims. The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment on his negligent failure to safeguard private information claim. In this case, the facts indicated that an employee of the insurer had access to confidential data through work that included records maintained by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.