Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

August 16, 2013

7-Month-Old Boy Dies After Ingesting Laundry Detergent Pod

Several months ago, our Boston injury lawyer blog posted a story about a recent alert put out about by the Consumer Product Safety Commission warning that single-load liquid laundry packets are toxic for kids-especially because their gel-like tiny packets tend to be soft and colorful, making them attractive to young children, who tend to be easily prone to putting tiny objects in their mouth.

Now comes a report that a 7-month-old boy has died after eating one of these laundry packets and an investigation into the incident is ongoing. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the ingestion accident took place in a battered women’s shelter. It is not known at this time whether ingestion of the detergent caused the baby’s death. If it is, this would be the first reported poisoning death involving these pods.

The American Association of Poison Control reports that already this year there have been 5,753 kids under the age of sick that have gotten sick from ingesting laundry detergent packets. The pods are the right size for putting in the mouth and can puncture easily, potentially causing serious side effects even if the detergent just makes contact with the eyes or skin. Serious side effects have included vomiting, breathing problems, drowsiness, eye irritation, temporary vision, ocular burns, and diarrhea. Many of the laundry detergent brands that make these detergent pods don’t package them in childproof containers, which means that if a child gets to one of these containers while unsupervised, he/she can easily open one up and touch the pods and/or put it in the mouth, thinking it is a toy, candy, or an object to teeth on.

August 15, 2013

When Hosting a Party, Remember to Serve Responsibly

by Altman & Altman

With summer still in full force, we would like to remind you to be responsible when hosting get-togethers this season. Whether you’re hosting a graduation party, barbeque, or any kind of social get-together where alcohol is being served, you bare a huge responsibility to your guests and their safety.

Massachusetts Social Host Liability Law is an extremely important subject, because what many people do not realize is that the actions of their guests, even after a guest has left the party, may fall under the responsibility of the host.

What is Massachusetts Social Host Liability Law?

In Massachusetts, a social host is anyone who provides alcohol to a guest, as an act of hospitality without exchanging money. A social host is also considered someone who not only provides alcohol for his or her guests, but allows a guest to consume alcohol on his or her property. While the property that is involved is usually someone’s home, properties can also include beach property, rental property, and even boats-essentially any property that a host owns or controls. Under Massachusetts law, by furnishing alcohol and permitting guests to consume it on his or her property, the host assumes liability. Hosts are not always adults, and can include minors as well.

According to Massachusetts Social Host Liability Law, liability includes all injuries caused by alcohol by both the person who caused the accident as well as the person who served the alcohol. The most common type of accident is drunk driving. According to the Massachusetts judicial system hosts are responsible for making sure their guests do not consume alcohol to the point of intoxication. For example, if you host a party and one of your guests is over-served and winds up injuring another person as a result of drunk driving, not only is he at fault, but you are responsible as well.

Social Host Liability Law and Minors

Massachusetts is very clear about laws on underage drinking. Anyone under the age of 21 is not allowed to consume alcohol. Period. As a parent, it may be tempting to allow your underage son or daughter to have friends over for a party, especially during prom or graduation season, or if your son or daughter is home from college. Taking the keys and requiring guests to sleepover is not the way to prevent minors from getting hurt because of alcohol. Even if a minor injures him or herself without driving, you are still responsible for providing a place to consume alcohol, condoning its consumption, and supplying the beverages. Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 138, Section 34, any person who supplies alcohol to a person under 21 is subject to a $2,000 fine and faces up to a year of imprisonment.

A common concern many parents with teenagers have is what to do if their underage child has a party while they’re not at home. There is potential that the parents can be held responsible, whether or not a guest is injured. However, Massachusetts law does not attach civil liability if the parents of the accused minor did not supply the alcohol that was consumed. Simply put, a parent who supplied the alcohol that was consumed at the underage party is liable, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is responsible. However a parent who did not supply the alcohol at the party (if for instance the minors brought his/her own alcohol), and had no knowledge of the party, would not be held liable. Another issue to be aware of is that you may be civilly liable if your underage child drinks at another person’s house and then injures someone, under the circumstance that you previously gave either explicit or tacit permission for them to consume
alcohol at someone else’s party.
Continue reading

August 13, 2013

Baseball Fan Dies after Fall at Georgia Stadium

by Altman & Altman

A baseball fan died last night after falling nearly 70 feet from the upper-deck at Turner Field in Atlanta.

The incident involving a 30-year old Georgia man occurred around 8:55 p.m. Monday night. Investigators are unsure of why the man fell but believe that the fall was accidental. They have not said whether alcohol was a factor in the fall.

This is the second death at a Georgia sports stadium since last year. Last August a Tennessee fan died after he fell 45 feet at the Georgia Dome during a college football game between Tennessee and North Carolina State.

When incidents like this occur, the first questions people usually ask are “Why did this happen?” and “Who is responsible?” People are also concerned about how the incident could have been prevented and how future similar incidents could be prevented. Referring back to an earlier blog we posted about fan injuries in stadiums, there are several things that can explain the legal responsibility a stadium owner has to a fan that has been injured while at the vicinity.

Owners and managing companies of these large stadiums are fully aware of the types of risks posed to individuals who visit their establishments, and often tickets to sporting events or concerts are printed with a disclaimer and assumption of potential risk statement. These statements essentially mean that by purchasing the ticket, the guest understands the risk for injury and assumes responsibility should he or she be injured at the stadium. The statements also relieve the stadium’s owners or managers from assuming legal liability for the injured person.

In addition to the disclaimer on tickets, venues that regularly host sporting events are outfitted with protective equipment to prevent spectator injury. At Fenway Park for example, there is a protective net behind home plate and surrounding sections to protect fans from wild pitches and foul balls. And at the Bruin’s home ice rink at the TD Garden, there is protective glass as well as netting surrounding the ice to shield spectators from flying hockey pucks.
Continue reading

August 7, 2013

Towns of Carlisle and Concord Sued for Massachusetts Personal Injury Over Alleged Bullying

by Altman & Altman

An ex- Concord-Carlisle High School student is suing the Concord-Carlisle School District and the towns of Concord and Carlisle for Massachusetts personal injury. Isabella Hankey filed a federal lawsuit claiming she was bullied for close to two years. Also named as defendants are Superintendent Diana Rigby, Assistant Principal Alan Weinstein, and Principal Peter Badalament. The 18-year-old is seeking $2 million.

Hankey contends that school officials were notified about the bullying incidents but that they did not act to effectively handle the matter, which only exacerbated the situation. She says that her car was vandalized multiple times, including in the school parking lot, with slurs keyed into her vehicle and feces smeared on the car’s exterior. Death threats against her in the form of graffiti were written on bathroom walls.

Hankey claims that rather than help her the school tried to destroy the bullying evidence by trying to scrub the writing off the walls. Meantime, the school principal allegedly did not respond to emails and phone calls.

July 31, 2013

Beverly, MA Widow Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against USA Triathlon

by Altman & Altman

Cheryl Angelo is suing USA Triathlon in her husband’s drowning death. Richard Angelo, 53, died last summer while taking part in the event in Vermont. Now, Cheryl is seeking $1 million from the organizers of the event.

According to her wrongful death complaint, Richard went into medical distress while swimming at the event, which took place in Lake Champlain in Vermont on August 18, 2012. He was taken to the hospital after rescue crews discovered him in the water. An autopsy report states that the 53-year-old drowned.

Now, Cheryl is contending that USA Triathlon was negligent in how it ran the athletic event, did not properly supervise the swim, and lacked sufficient lifeguards, trained staff or adequate lifesaving equipment. She says that her husband was seen going off course during the event and while rescue personnel tried to redirect him, that was all they did.

July 29, 2013

OSHA Orders Massachusetts Trucking Company to Pay Terminated Employee $131,000 in Whistleblower Case

by Altman & Altman

A Marlborough, MA commercial trucking company was ordered to pay more over $131,000 to a driver who was terminated for refusing to drive excess hours that would have violated national safety regulations.

Following an in-depth investigation to the worker’s whistleblower claim, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined that Brillo Motor Transportation Incorporated and Brillo’s owner, Chuck Cappello, violated the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The company had fired a truck driver in December 2010, in retaliation for his refusal to drive a truck from Quincy to Milford, MA, because he had already exceeded the amount of driving hours allowed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Under the FMCSA’s regulations, drivers who have driven 60 hours in a seven-day period must have a minimum of 34 consecutive hours of rest before operating a motor vehicle again.

According to the STAA, an employer may not discriminate, discipline, or discharge an employee if the employee “reused to operate a vehicle because (i) the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order of the United States related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security, or; (ii) the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or public because of the vehicle’s hazardous safety or security condition.”

OSHA’s regional administrator for New England stated that “Employers do not have the right to take adverse action against an employee who refuses to violate safety regulations designed to protect him and the public, and such an employer activity places the well-being of employees and the public at risk if it intimidates workers into violating the law.”
Continue reading

July 25, 2013

$1.1B Nursing Home Negligence Verdict Issued Against Trans Healthcare Management and Trans Healthcare Inc.

by Altman & Altman

A jury has awarded $1 billion in punitive damages and $110 million in damages to the family of the late Arlene Townsend. The defendants in this nursing home neglect case are Trans Healthcare Inc. and Trans Healthcare Management.

Townsend, was a resident at the Auburndale Oaks Healthcare Center from 2004 until her death there in 2007 at the age of 69. She was involved in more than one nursing home fall during her stay there and r family believes that she was not properly supervised.

The two healthcare companies had stopped participating in the nursing negligence case after arguing that they only ran the facility through September 30, 2004. However, a default judgment was made against them two years ago. Although they sought to have the defaults set aside, a judge refused.

July 23, 2013

FDA Warns Consumers of the Dangers of Wearing Spray Sunscreen Near Open Flame

by Altman & Altman

Spray sunscreens are widely admired for their easy application for people on the go, especially those with small children. Though their convenience may put them in a category above traditional lotion sunscreens, sprays come with a significant safety risk. The Food and Drug Administration has found that many of these products contain flammable materials and have the potential to cause significant burns to consumers who wear them near open flames. To date, the FDA is aware of five separate instances where people have suffered burns while wearing spray sunscreen that were so severe that they required medical attention. All of these victims, according to the FDA, were exposed to some sort of open flame (lighting a cigarette, grilling, and contact with a candle) after the sunscreen had been applied.

One company, Energizer, has voluntarily recalled over 20 of its Banana Boat spray sunscreen products because of this safety concern. In their press release, Energizer stated that the delivery spray system dispenses more sunscreen compared to other similar products and does not dry as fast on the skin, and therefore increases the risk for the product to ignite should a consumer come into contact with a flame. Energizer is currently the only manufacturer who has voluntarily taken its products off the market however the FDA is warning consumers that many other spray sunscreen products contain flammable properties such as alcohols that could ignite if exposed to heat and flame.

According to the FDA, consumers should take the following safety precautions to prevent injury from sunscreen:

• When choosing a sunscreen, think about where you will be applying it. If you plan to be near an open flame, avoid products that have a flammability warning and choose a non-flammable sunscreen product. Be especially aware of what type of sunscreen you’re choosing for your child.
• While applying or wearing a sunscreen that is labeled “Flammable” avoid exposure to flames and do not apply these flammable products near an open flame; avoid lighting cigarettes, grilling, candles, or sparking materials.
Continue reading

July 17, 2013

When Are Stadiums and Arenas Responsible for Injuries to Fans?

by Altman & Altman

Each year millions of Americans go to stadiums to attend sports games, concerts, and other spectator events. While events such as baseball games, hockey games, races, and concerts can be fun and memorable, there are instances when these experiences may turn into dangerous situations and put spectators at risk for serious injury and even death.

Owners and managing companies of these large venues are well aware of the risks posed to visitors of their establishments, and to counter the risk of legal liability for injuries visitors may sustain, most tickets (whether for sports events or other spectator events) are printed with a disclaimer and an assumption of potential risk statement. Essentially these statements waive legal responsibility for the venue, and in purchasing the ticket the patron understands the risk for injury and assumes accountability should he or she be injured during the event.

In addition to the precautionary disclaimer on tickets, venues that regularly host sporting events such as baseballs games or hockey games are outfitted with protective equipment to prevent spectator injury. At Fenway Park for example, there is a protective net behind home plate and surrounding sections to protect fans from wild pitches and foul balls. And at the Bruin’s home ice rink at the TD Garden, there is protective glass as well as netting surrounding the ice to shield spectators from flying hockey pucks.

Though the ticket disclaimers as well as preventative measures serve to protect venues from legal responsibility should someone be seriously injured, and courts typically disregard personal injury claims because of that rule, there are some exceptions. Personal injury and negligence claims may be filed if an injured party can prove that the owners of the sports stadium or entertainment venue did not take adequate measures to keep them safe. An example of a premises liability situation that does not fall under the “assumption of risk” disclaimer could include a faulty railing or broken steps that cause a fan to fall and become injured because of faulty property maintenance.
Continue reading

July 16, 2013

Brookline Hot Coffee Assault Gives Woman First-Degree Facial Burns

by Altman & Altman

In Brookline, a woman sustained first-degree burns to her face when another woman assaulted her with hot coffee. The incident took place at the HRI hospital cafeteria.

According to the report, Amber Kelly threw the drink at the woman, who is related to the ex-wife of her husband. Kelly is charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, in addition to four other additional warrants.

Massachusetts Personal Injury and Assault