by

Often we assume that dangers outside the home are the most likely to cause us harm. However, sometimes it’s the items found within our own homes can cause debilitating injuries or even wrongful deaths. Items like heavy furniture can be especially dangerous to children, and if you or a loved one or a child was injured or wrongfully killed in an accident involving furniture or other household items, contact a wrongful death attorney at the Cambridge law offices of Altman & Altman LLP today.

These tragedies can occur at any time

It may seem unlikely, but a furniture-related accident can happen at any time. Consider how easily a young child can wander away from your watchful eye. It can only take a matter of seconds before a child pulls out a drawer of a dresser and stands in it, simply wanting to play, only for the whole dresser to become off balance and fall onto the child.

These types of accidents have taken the lives of children in places across the world. Most recently, a California family was awarded $46 million in a settlement with Swedish furniture giant Ikea after a similar accident involving a dresser claimed the life of their two-year-old child. It is reportedly the largest settlement paid to a family for the wrongful death of a single child in United States history. In 2016, Ikea paid $50 million to the families of three other children who had been killed by the same type of dresser.

Families of the child victims say that Ikea was aware of the potential dangers involving that specific dresser, especially after the settlement in 2016. Despite this knowledge, they alleged the company did not do enough to get dangerous dressers recalled or do enough to promote better safety in newer models they produced since the wrongful deaths occurred. Ikea, through a spokesperson, took responsibility for the action and offered their condolences to the California family.

Children aren’t the only ones at risk

While children are vulnerable to furniture-related accidents more than an able-bodied adult would be, children are not the only one who can be injured in such an incident. The elderly – especially those who are living alone or with minimal supervision – can easily become injured if a heavy piece of furniture were to topple over.

Perhaps they lose their balance and grab for the nearest thing to catch them, and the furniture is on wheels without any braking mechanism or is too top heavy by design. The furniture could easily then topple over and land on the senior citizen, which would likely cause severe injuries such as lacerations, broken bones, concussions or other major trauma. This could result in extensive hospital stays with necessary and risky surgery, permanent mobility problems and, in the worst cases, death. Continue reading

by

With 19 women joining together in the most recent lawsuit against Lyft – which claims they were allegedly sexually assaulted while utilizing the service and were then were promptly ignored by the company after complaining – questions continue to arise about Lyft’s safety and the ability of the company to vet its drivers. If you or a loved one has been harmed or sexually assaulted while riding in a Lyft or other ride sharing service, contact an attorney from Altman & Altman LLP right away.

A reoccurring problem

The options made available by ride sharing services like Lyft and Uber have drastically altered the transportation landscape and given a convenient means of travel for those looking for a safe ride around towns and cities across the country. However, this most recent case is far from the first that has arisen which alleges ride-sharing customers being victimized by drivers.

In September, another 14 women banded together to file a similar lawsuit, which alleged that Lyft allowed sexual predators to become drivers, and then refused to cooperate with women after they had been attacked, or protected their own business interests over helping the victims attain justice.

Lyft responded by announcing it was enacting several organizational efforts to address the situation, including sexual harassment and sexual violence prevention training for drivers and a partnership with the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network – and they maintained that all drivers go through a criminal background check.

But the most recent lawsuit has advocates and the victims themselves crying foul that the steps have not done enough, and that the company’s response when these crimes occur has continued to be not in the interest of the victim, but of the company’s reputation. There have been approximately 200 women that have come forward between the ages of 20 and 40 who to report they were sexually assaulted while utilizing Lyft’s services.

Nobody should be victimized when placing their trust in a service like Lyft

Lyft and other ride sharing services have changed the game when it comes to going out, especially for those who are thinking ahead of time when they may be planning on drinking to a point where it wouldn’t be safe to drive themselves. This kind of forward thinking should be rewarded, as they are protecting others and themselves from possibly destructive behavior. Unfortunately, an abhorrent number of drivers working for Lyft have taken advantage of the position of trust they are placed in.

The response from Lyft must be uniform and strong. They must cooperate with any customer who has been victimized while utilizing their services and try to implement any other means to prevent such activity – whether it be through mandating the use of interior and exterior cameras on the vehicle or by improving their screening process to prevent predators from becoming drivers in the first place. Continue reading

by

Our nation’s veterans and active military members deserve our respect and appreciation for the tough job they do in protecting our country and our way of life. Unfortunately, veterans and active duty service members have not been treated with the type of respect we would hope when it comes to a brand of earplugs manufactured under the 3M umbrella, which has led to hearing loss and permanent hearing damage due to serious design flaws. If you or a loved one has suffered hearing loss as a result of the use of these earplugs, contact a personal injury attorney from Altman & Altman LLP today.

3M subject to many lawsuits over these common military earplugs

3M is a multinational conglomerate corporation which owns many subsidiary companies that manufacture any different type of medical and pharmaceutical products imaginable. One of these companies, Aearo Technologies, manufactured a type of protective earplug in 2000 that was intended to be useful when worn two different ways – one way would supposedly block out all loud sounds, while the other way would block out most loud sounds but still allow the wearer to hear soft sounds, like the instructions of a fellow soldier or commanding officer.

Aearo Technologies was bought by 3M in 2008, and since 3M won a bid to become the exclusive supplier of protective earplugs to the military between 2003 and 2012, they sought to continue selling these earplugs, which are called “Combat Arms.”

What is now the subject of many lawsuits is the fact that 3M allegedly knew from the moment they purchased the company that the Combat Arms earplugs had a crucial design flaw which essentially rendered them completely useless in a loud combat situation.

3M allegedly knew about this complaint because Aearo Technologies noted the presence design flaw during the earplug’s production in 2000 – when the technician testing the plugs took an extra step when inserting them to prevent the design flaw from affecting their sound blocking capabilities – a step that would not be immediately apparent to anybody unless they were made aware of it beforehand. There is good reason to suspect 3M would know about this flaw, because the technician that worked for Aearo Technologies was brought on board to work for 3M after they were acquired.

Lawsuits allege that both Aearo, and 3M after they acquired Aearo, knowingly misled the U.S. government and the thousands of U.S. military service members who relied on the faulty earplugs, which resulted in many cases of temporary and even permanent hearing damage.

These earplugs caused real damage, and Altman & Altman LLP can help

Research from complainants show that during the time interval in which 3M and Aearo was supplying Combat Arms earplugs to the military, cases of hearing loss and tinnitus in combat veterans spiked to a significant degree. This is simply unconscionable that a company trusted with the care of military service members could fail to protect one of their most crucial senses, despite having good reason to suspect there was a flaw in the design of one of their most highly sold products.

Selling defective products which are known to have a design flaw that renders them ineffective in their original purpose is unethical and it is also against the law. There is good evidence to suggest that 3M should have recognized the design flaw in these earplugs and accounted for that, but instead they chose to continue selling the earplugs to continue making a profit, allegedly at the expense of our brave men and women in uniform. Continue reading

by

The temporary, four-month ban imposed which prohibits the sale of all vaping products in Massachusetts has entered its second month despite multiple legal challenges from vape shop owners and the general public, and controversy around whether Governor Charlie Baker abused his authority as governor to implement the ban.

As the count of people who have suffered respiratory illnesses from vaping products continue to rise, the attorneys at the Cambridge personal injury firm of Altman & Altman LLP are ready to hear from you if you have reason to believe you or a loved one contracted a serious illness due to a vaping product.

These mysterious illnesses affect the lungs and total respiratory systems of the afflicted, and have been confirmed to have resulted in the deaths of at least two Massachusetts residents at this time. According to the Center for Disease Control, there have been 1,888 confirmed cases of EVALI – which is the abbreviation being used to described e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury – in 49 states (all except Alaska) and 37 total deaths across 24 states as of Oct. 29, 2019.

According to the CDC, a majority of the patients who have presented with this illness have a history of e-cigarette or vaping product use, and THC – the psychoactive chemical present in marijuana – has been in “most” of the samples tested by the FDA to date. Most patients have reported a history of using THC products as well.

However, the CDC also reports that THC products off the street or obtained from “informal sources” such as illicit dealers or friends and family members are linked to most of the cases and “play a major role in the outbreak.”

Response to the Massachusetts ban

For the reason above outlined by the CDC, certain vape shop owners and legal marijuana business advocates have criticized Governor Baker’s vape ban as being over-aggressive and overreactive, which is putting legitimate businesses at risk of financial ruin during the ban. After all, while it may only be a temporary, four-month ban, four months is an eternity in business time, especially if vaping products make up a significant portion of that business’s revenue.

A Massachusetts judge recently ruled that the Baker administration improperly went forward with the ban without any public hearings to assess the potential harm to businesses, which caused the administration to re-file the legislation for the ban. Despite the legal trouble, Governor Baker continues to stand by the ban and say that, until an exact root of the illnesses can be determined, it is a necessary step to preserve public health. Continue reading

by

Johnson & Johnson has recently had to pull over 33,000 bottles of baby powder off the shelves after the Food and Drug Administration discovered evidence of asbestos – which is known to cause cancer – in one of the bottles. It is not the first time Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder has been feared to introduce people to the risk of contracting cancer. If you have reason to believe you or a loved one has been exposed to cancer-causing elements via their baby powder, contact Altman & Altman LLP today.

More lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson contributes to long list

Pharmaceutical titan Johnson & Johnson is known throughout the world for being the corporate owner of widely-used products such as Tylenol and Motrin – in addition to hundreds of other products that span a wide range of industries. However, they may very well be more notorious for their long list of lawsuits that continues to grow with each passing year.

The company – which made nearly $82 billion in profit in 2018 – is embattled with over 100,000 lawsuits against it due to people claiming they have come into harm due to the use of their products. Over 15 percent of those are directly related to lawsuits coming from those who have used their talc-based baby powder products.

Users of their baby powder who have brought suit in the past have made claims that the baby powder contributed to their contracting of various cancers – from talcum powder contributing to ovarian cancer to the same powder causing mesothelioma, a form of respiratory cancer that is traditionally caused by asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral that is confirmed to be an aggressive carcinogen.

As a result of the positive test for asbestos within the baby powder – which is manufactured in China – the FDA recommended that all users of Johnson & Johnson talc-based powders should cease using them immediately and indefinitely. Johnson & Johnson, meanwhile, has denied any wrongdoing and liability for the test, instead shifting an accusatory tone of defensiveness towards the FDA testing process.

This is not uncommon for large companies to do. Even in cases where Johnson & Johnson has been found to be negligent in their contributions to a victim’s pain and suffering, they have been unwilling to accept the verdicts set against them and take responsibility – like what occurred when they were hit with a monumental $8 billion jury verdict against them following a claim that their anti-psychotic drug Risperdal had caused the man taking it to develop female-like breasts. Continue reading

by

In the midst of what Governor Charlie Baker has called a public health crisis, all vaping products – whether used for marijuana-derived THC products or for nicotine – have been banned for four months, effective on September 24th in Massachusetts. The development has already resulted in a lawsuit against the state from vape shop owners and protests from those who say that vaping has helped them quit more harmful practices, such as smoking cigarettes.

The ban was initiated due to concern that has amplified following multiple deaths – at least seven nationwide as recently reported by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control (CDC) – and hundreds of cases of a mysterious lung disease that has been attributed to the increasingly popular activity of vaping, which is the inhaling of a vaporized mist of substances that usually contains nicotine, marijuana’s psychoactive chemical THC or a combination of the two.

Massachusetts has vowed to study the phenomenon during the ban – which temporarily forbids the sale of all vaping products in the state – with the hopes of obtaining more answers about what is causing the health complications and how they can be prevented. The state has specifically cited a concern over the use of vaping products in younger generations, as there has been a well-documented rise in vaping use among children and teens nationwide.

What products are causing the health problems?

Perhaps the biggest question that remains unanswered in the vaping crisis is what products are causing the pulmonary issues that have resulted in deaths and hundreds of illnesses. Lab tests have confirmed that the majority of the illnesses have been caused by ingestion of harmful substances stemming from the use of illicit, black market vaping cartridges used in unregulated THC vaporizers.

This fact has led some vape shop owners – like the ones who have joined together to sue the state – to cry foul over the fact that their vape products are purely used for nicotine delivery and have all been approved by federal regulators. They argue that they are being unfairly and arbitrarily punished in a reactionary manner that will ultimately sink their businesses and cause undue financial harm to their employees – all without just reason as their products are not causing the illnesses.

Other have argued that banning legal vape products will simply turn people back to the black market – which obviously does not comply with the law regardless of the situation – or switch back to the much more readily harmful and available tobacco cigarettes. Protests have already occurred in Boston outside the State House with people arguing that the ban will actually cause more sicknesses and deaths as people will continue to purchase dangerous black market vape cartridges or smoke cigarettes, which are known to cause serious diseases.

It is unknown how the lawsuits will pan out and it is not known if the vaping ban will continue beyond its temporary, four-month status or if it will be ended prior to that date. All that is currently known is that debate will continue to rage about whether the ban is warranted, whether it is adversely harming small business owners and whether it is going to end up doing more harm than good. Continue reading

by

Pharmaceutical giant Bayer, who owns fellow agrochemical and agricultural biotechnical giant Monsanto, is reportedly seeking to settle over 18,000 lawsuits filed against it over claims that Monsanto’s wildly popular weed killer – Roundup – may cause cancer in individuals who have had prolonged exposure to the chemical over a long period of time. If you have any reason to believe your health was negatively impacted by use of Roundup weed killer, it is imperative you contact an attorney from Altman & Altman LLP immediately to potentially be eligible for a piece of this settlement.

Bayer is now looking to settle this large pile of lawsuits for a reported $8 billion, despite insisting throughout the increasing number of lawsuits filed that there is no credible evidence linking Roundup – or its primary ingredient, glyphosate – with an increased risk of contracting cancer.

Already, a jury verdict resulted in a more than $2 billion award for a California couple earlier this summer after they alleged that they both contracted non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma within four years of each other despite having no genetic history of the disease. Another man received a settlement worth more than $289 million last year, before having that lowered to $39 million.

Throughout these lawsuits and others, Bayer and Monsanto have testified that there is no evidence that Roundup causes cancer, but the fact remains that the World Health Organization maintains that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” meaning it is an ingredient that can increase the chance of contracting cancer in those exposed to it.

There’s still time to file a suit

Any reasonable person could look at this situation and ask one simple question: If Bayer maintains there is no credible evidence linking Roundup with developing cancer, why would they reportedly be willing to settle these cases out of court for $8 billion? The unfortunate answer is that it is likely more cost-effective and less distracting for Bayer. Bayer amassed nearly $40 billion in revenue in 2018, with a reported total list of assets worth over $126 billion.

While paying out $8 billion is certainly not a small price to pay for Bayer, it is well within their means and likely makes more sense than continuing to fight out the issue in court, which could continue for many more months, potentially years, and would also continue to keep them firmly in the public eye as news would continue to cover the suits throughout the litigation.

By taking care of the lawsuits in one large lump sum, they can potentially even save money – especially judging by the aforementioned $2 billion award that was granted to just two individuals.

However, nothing has been settled yet, and there is still time to file a complaint of your own against Monsanto/Bayer if you or a loved one has developed cancer after years of using Roundup weed killer. If you have no reason to believe their cancer was caused by something else, like genetic predisposition or exposure to other more established carcinogens (such as long-term smoking of cigarettes), then you may have a good chance of being able to collect as part of any large settlement. Continue reading

by

School is back in session across Boston and throughout Massachusetts, which means that school buses full of children are back on the roads each morning and afternoon as they are taken back and forth from bus stops and the school yard. As uneventful as transporting children should be, on occasion terrible incidents can occur regarding impatient motorists hitting kids who are getting onto or off the school bus. If your child was harmed or even killed following such an incident, contact an attorney from the Cambridge personal injury firm of Altman & Altman LLP today.

Stopping for school bus loading/unloading is the law in Massachusetts

If you are a motorist traveling in a vehicle and you come across a school bus stopping, accompanied by the stop sign arm extending from the driver’s side of the vehicle with lights flashing, it is your legal obligation to stop your vehicle and wait until the stop sign arm has retracted and the school bus continues forward.

Failure to stop in such a situation, or illegally passing by a school bus that has come to a stop to let children on or off the bus, can result in a minimum $250 fine. That fine can climb as high as $2,000 and also leave the perpetrator with a suspended license for a whole year.

School bus passing can have deadly consequences

The school bus stopping law is one that exists for very straightforward, good reasons. Kids as young as five years old utilize the school bus to get to school each day, and some must cross busy streets to do so. Ensuring that traffic has stopped on both sides of the road is the only way to make sure that they aren’t put at adverse risk of being struck by a vehicle, which at their age is always a potentially life-threatening accident to suffer.

According to a national survey conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), where 38 states and Washington D.C. responded to inquiries regarding how many school bus passing incidents occurred during a school year, as many as 15 million motorists will illegally pass a stopped school bus – which demonstrates how disturbingly common such an incident is, and how many children are potentially at risk from this reckless behavior.

Tragically, in just a six-month period between August 2018 and March 2019, 12 children were killed in the United States and another 47 injured as they simply tried to get on and off of their school bus. According to the NASDPTS study, 73 percent of the students killed over a 48-year period in the country were 9 years old or younger. Continue reading

by

Juul Labs, the manufacturer behind the country’s most popular e-cigarette product, JUUL, are currently facing scrutiny from lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives for their alleged role in a sharp uptick in e-cigarette usage among young children and teenagers throughout the country.

The company has denied these claims, recently telling the economic subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform that their goal has been to “eliminate cigarettes for good,” and that “Juul Labs isn’t big tobacco,” and that their top priority is “combating underage use.”

But can such a claim, that JUUL should not be compared to the villainous antics of big tobacco companies of the past, be taken for true at face value? After all, Altria – the parent company of Philip Morris USA, which manufacturers the iconic Marlboro brand of cigarettes – purchased a 35 percent stake of Juul Labs in December of 2018.

Experts have also found that Juul Labs has engaged in similar advertising campaigns – like using young, attractive models and marketing exciting names and tasty flavors – as tobacco companies of the past. These tactics, critics and lawmakers allege, have been specially crafted to make the products more attractive to young kids and teenagers. The brand used to have a strong presence on social media, but they have since shut those accounts down under increased scrutiny.

E-cig and JUUL use explodes among youth

According to government estimates and surveys, as many as 20 percent of high school students in America tried an e-cigarette product last year. Their widespread availability, price, variation of flavors and discrete size has made JUUL a common choice for teenagers. Electronic cigarettes also do not produce the pungent smell of a traditional cigarette, so they are able to secretly use them within buildings and in places that otherwise would be impossible with traditional cigarettes.

The prevalence of e-cigarette products pre-date JUUL, as they began to gain popularity in the mid-2000s, however JUUL has been able to capitalize on a market that has grown exponentially faster than scientific data has been able to keep up with.

Research on whether or not electronic cigarettes are less harmful than traditional cigarettes has taken time, and results remain inconclusive. As of this writing, there is no confirmed research to back up the claim that vaporized nicotine products are safer than traditional cigarettes. However, this hasn’t stopped e-cigarette manufacturers like JUUL from claiming their products to be a safer alternative. JUUL even includes testimonials on their website from people who “made the switch” from cigarettes to their products.

What research has shown, however, is that vaporized e-cigarette products contain other health risks that are still not well understood. For example, the chemical diacetyl – which is added to food products such as popcorn for its buttery flavor – is common in e-cigarettes and JUUL products for improving flavor and smoothness of the vaporized product. The problem is that when diacetyl is vaporized, it becomes a harmful respiratory irritant, potentially leading to serious complications such as popcorn lung. Continue reading

by

Motorcycles can be an exhilarating way to get around and see the world. Over 13 million people ride a motorcycle in the United States, according to recent data, which also unfortunately means that motorcycle accidents occur every single day. Injuries that occur to motorcyclists can be among the most serious, and road rash is among the most common type of injury suffered. If you or a loved one were injured following a motorcycle accident, contact the personal injury experts at Altman & Altman LLP today.

When riding a motorcycle, the margin for error is very slim. User error and bad decisions can contribute to serious injuries, but outside factors beyond the operator’s control can also lead to horrific accidents. Negligence or reckless behavior of other motorists, malfunctioning equipment and other factors can cause a motorcycle rider to crash or fall off their bike, leading to injuries such as road rash.

In cases where your injury were caused by factors outside your control, you may be able to file a personal injury claim against the responsible party or parties, which could result in financial compensation that enables you to fix your bike, heal from your injuries and recover lost wages that you were unable to collect due to being out of work during your injury.

What is road rash?

A road rash injury occurs when an unprotected layer of skin comes into contact with pavement or another type of ground surface while traveling at high speeds. The friction that is created between the surface of the ground and the body causes the skin to tear away, causing significant damage to the soft tissue and, in severe cases, to the muscles all the way down to bone.

A common misconception with road rash is that it can only happen to exposes skin. While road rash is essentially a guarantee if you crash while traveling on a motorcycle while your extremities are without any clothing to protect them, road rash can also occur through various types of clothing. This is why there is a market for specialized motorcycle gear – such as leather jackets and pants – that are supposed to reduce the severity of road rash.

At its worst, road rash injuries can cover large areas of the body. Aside from the obvious pain and suffering that will result from these injuries – sometimes permanent injuries, if they are deep enough to damage nerves – road rash injuries are also ripe grounds for infections afterwards, as they leave large portions of your body exposed to bacteria and other contaminants.

What caused your motorcycle accident?

Motorcycle crashes can happen for many reasons, however if your motorcycle crash was caused by the reckless actions of somebody else, you may be entitled to compensation. A few examples can include:

  • A motorist fails to signal a turn, traveling into your lane on the highway and causing an accident
  • A motorist crashes into you while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs
  • A distracted driver is using their cell phone and fails to see you, causing an accident
  • A driver fails to obey traffic signals or travels at a recklessly excessive speed, causing an accident
  • Mechanics from the body shop that you just picked up your bike from failed to properly secure one of your wheels, causing instability and a wreck once you gained speed
  • Construction crews spilled debris or left loose gravel/dirt on a street without cleaning it up, leading you to lose control while riding

Continue reading

Contact Information
Cambridge, MA
Main Office
675 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617.492.3000Fax: 617.491.3299Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Boston, MA
1 State St
Suite 2
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617.547.1205Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Needham, MA
250 First Avenue 2nd Floor
Needham, MA 02494
Phone: 781.675.2329Toll Free: 800.481.6199

Some Select Cases are referred to other attorneys for principal responsibility

By publishing this information on this Website, the Boston, Massachusetts law firm of Altman & Altman LLP is not claiming to represent any clients or cases mentioned here. The content provided is designed to inform readers and is not intended as legal advice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Altman & Altman LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design