Negligent Security & Negligent Hiring
Mr. K
1000000
On September 27th, at approximately 7:13 PM, a 29-year-old resident of New Jersey,
entered an establishment north of Boston with a co-worker. While at the establishment, he was served
alcohol
and interacted with female employees. At approximately 9:59 PM, he was approached by a female employee who
engaged him physically by interlocking arms. The female employee then escorted him to a VIP Section.
Before
entering the VIP Section with the female employee, the victim interacted with security staff. After the
exchange between the victim, the female employee and security personnel at the entrance of the VIP
Section,
the victim started walking away, heading back to the bar. 10 seconds later, he was attacked by the same
security personell, throwing a blow to the back of the head. After dazing him, he, along with 5 employees
forcefull ejected the victim.
Security staff closed the doors with the victim outside. At 10:00, five security staffers exited the
premises through the front door and chased the victim into the parking lot, surrounding him in an
aggressive
manner. The original assaillant kicked the victim as the security staff surrounded him. The victim was
sucker punched in the face, knocking the victim unconscious.
At 10:03 PM, a captain from the City’s Police Department pulled into the parking lot and called emergency
services.
Since this assault, the victim has lived with a traumatic brain injury. He is no longer employable. He can
no longer enjoy the activities with his fiancé that he enjoyed before this unnecessary, avoidable
incident.
He received compensation of $1,000,000 for his past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity,
pain and suffering and emotion/mental anguish which includes embarrassment, depression, loss of self-worth
etc. It is not enough.
On September 27th, at approximately 7:13 PM, a 29-year-old resident of New
Jersey, entered an establishment north of Boston with a co-worker. While at the establishment, he was
served
alcohol and interacted with female employees. At approximately 9:59 PM, he was approached by a female
employee who engaged him physically by interlocking arms. The female employee then escorted him to a VIP
Section. Before entering the VIP Section with the female employee, the victim interacted with security
staff. After the exchange between the victim, the female employee and security personnel at the entrance
of
the VIP Section, the victim started walking away, heading back to the bar. 10 seconds later, he was
attacked
by the same security personell, throwing a blow to the back of the head. After dazing him, he, along with
5
employees forcefull ejected the victim.
Security staff closed the doors with the victim outside. At 10:00, five security staffers exited the
premises through the front door and chased the victim into the parking lot, surrounding him in an
aggressive
manner. The original assaillant kicked the victim as the security staff surrounded him. The victim was
sucker punched in the face, knocking the victim unconscious.
At 10:03 PM, a captain from the City’s Police Department pulled into the parking lot and called emergency
services.
Since this assault, the victim has lived with a traumatic brain injury. He is no longer employable. He can
no longer enjoy the activities with his fiancé that he enjoyed before this unnecessary, avoidable
incident.
He received compensation of $1,000,000 for his past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity,
pain and suffering and emotion/mental anguish which includes embarrassment, depression, loss of self-worth
etc. It is not enough.
Unsafe Construction Site
Mr. M
775000
Construction site injuries due to contact with electrical lines are a well-known hazard. Fifty-Four
percent
(54%) of all fatal electrical injuries occurred in the construction industry. On October 14th at
approximately
10:30 AM, the Superintendent of a Construction Company was in charge of a construction project in Boston.
A
parking lot with a small building was removed and the excavation for the foundation of the building was in
progress. During removal of the small building, electrical power to the building via a telephone pole was
removed by Public Utility in accordance with a work order filled out by Superintendent. Superintendent
assumed
this removed electrical current from the entire construction project.
Two conduits entered the construction area from the street. Superintendent instructed the excavation crew
to
remove the conduits. Supervisor explained he had a Work Order from Public Utility and the lines inside the
conduits were dead.
Mr. M, the victim, confirmed the plan with his own supervisor who explained “if Supervisor says its ok
then it
is ok.” The first conduit was cut by excavation crewmen and removed with the front loader by Mr. M. Mr. M
exited the excavator and used a hacksaw to cut the second conduit. On his second pull of the hacksaw, a
bright
flash occurred as well as a loud pop. Mr. M stood up and retrieved his cell phone. Mr. M called his
father.
While speaking to his father, he felt something striking him. Mr. M noticed co-workers throwing dirt on
him.
Mr. M was on fire.
An investigation by OSHA revealed multiple violations by Construction Company. The bottom line is this
should
have been prevented. All Supervisor had to do was walk the line back to the manhole to make sure it was
tagged
out as dead. Assuming it was dead, caused Mr. M to endure a lifetime of disability, pain, and emotional
distress.
Mr. M suffered serious burns to his left hand, arm, and leg because of being electrocuted and burned.
Prior to
trial, the parties engaged in mediation and resolved the claims for $775,000.
Construction site injuries due to contact with electrical lines are a well-known hazard. Fifty-Four
percent
(54%) of all fatal electrical injuries occurred in the construction industry. On October 14th at
approximately
10:30 AM, the Superintendent of a Construction Company was in charge of a construction project in Boston.
A
parking lot with a small building was removed and the excavation for the foundation of the building was in
progress. During removal of the small building, electrical power to the building via a telephone pole was
removed by Public Utility in accordance with a work order filled out by Superintendent. Superintendent
assumed
this removed electrical current from the entire construction project.
Two conduits entered the construction area from the street. Superintendent instructed the excavation crew
to
remove the conduits. Supervisor explained he had a Work Order from Public Utility and the lines inside the
conduits were dead.
Mr. M, the victim, confirmed the plan with his own supervisor who explained “if Supervisor says its ok
then it
is ok.” The first conduit was cut by excavation crewmen and removed with the front loader by Mr. M. Mr. M
exited the excavator and used a hacksaw to cut the second conduit. On his second pull of the hacksaw, a
bright
flash occurred as well as a loud pop. Mr. M stood up and retrieved his cell phone. Mr. M called his
father.
While speaking to his father, he felt something striking him. Mr. M noticed co-workers throwing dirt on
him.
Mr. M was on fire.
An investigation by OSHA revealed multiple violations by Construction Company. The bottom line is this
should
have been prevented. All Supervisor had to do was walk the line back to the manhole to make sure it was
tagged
out as dead. Assuming it was dead, caused Mr. M to endure a lifetime of disability, pain, and emotional
distress.
Mr. M suffered serious burns to his left hand, arm, and leg because of being electrocuted and burned.
Prior to
trial, the parties engaged in mediation and resolved the claims for $775,000.
Slip and Fall
Ms. D
510000
About 1 million Americans are injured, and 17,000 people die, because of fall
injuries every year: according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. On October 16, 2016,
Large
Retailer operated a store in Watertown, Massachusetts, which was open to the public. The women’s restroom
handicap stall was in a defective condition making it in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Specifically, there was no handle present to close the door, the locking mechanism was broken as
was
the hook on the back of the door provided for patrons’ use.
On or about October 16th, Ms. D, aged 82, was a customer of Large Retailer when she entered the
handicapped
stall and tried to shut the stall door to use the restroom. The latch was broken and there was no handle
for
her to hold the door shut. She used a walker to ambulate, and she had to let go of her walker to use both
hands to attempt to shut the stall door. She attempted to use the broken coat hook on the back of the
stall
door to hold the door shut while she put her finger in the hole of the latch to try and secure the door.
Despite these efforts, she fell.
After a lawsuit was filed, Authorized Representative testified on behalf of Large Retailer regarding ADA
requirements. He testified it was important for Large Retailer to remain in compliance with ADA
requirements
for the safety of its customers. Furthermore, although reluctantly, Authorized Representative agreed that
if
the latch on the handicap stall was broken, it would not be graspable, which, therefore, is in violation
of
the ADA. Finally, Authorized Representative testified that if the latch on the handicap stall was broken,
the stall should be shut down and the latch should be fixed immediately. This was not done on October 16,
2016.
After consulting with an ADA Compliance Consultant, specifically a Certified Access Specialist/
Accessibility Inspector we learned that the Standard of Care that Large Retailer is responsible to comply
with is that all “readily achievable” barriers be removed immediately. The fact that the slide lock
remained
broken and that Large Retailer did not shut down the ADA stall while a contractor or in-house maintenance
personnel repaired the lock, was a deviation from the required standard of care. Furthermore, ADA
Compliance
Consultant opined the absence of a handle, which all parties agree was not there on October 16, 2016, was
in
and of itself a violation of the ADA. Section 404.2.7 of the Federal ADA require that all doors, doorways,
and gates be accessible to all disabled and provide hardware and locking mechanism that can be operable
with
one hand without forcing the user to pinch, tightly grasp or twisting of the wrist to use or operate.
Finally, it was his opinion that Large Retailer did not maintain the minimum standard of care when
maintaining accessible elements within this specific facility.
Dr. S, a Massachusetts physician who is Board-Certified in Orthopedics, explained Ms. D was an 82-year-old
woman who fell while in the bathroom at Large Retailer. She sustained unstable T11 and T12 fractures. This
required surgical treatment. She later suffered from wound breakdown and required a wound debridement
which
followed multiple visits for wound care. Dr. S explains that there can be no doubt that Ms. D sustained a
traumatic thoracic fracture when she fell. The surgery she underwent was directly necessitated by this
fall
and the resultant injury, the rehabilitation she required, as well as the wound care she required, were a
direct result of this injury. She remained bedbound for many months which is also a direct result of this
injury.
As of July 25th of the following year, her progress indicated that she was permanently partially disabled
due to her injury. According to the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment 6th Edition, Ms. D has 25% whole person impairment.
Prior to the incident, Ms. D’s activities included being independent, living on her own, and able to
perform
activities of daily living. Since the October 16th fall, Jeanette D has had to go through a very long,
very
frustrating, and very painful course of surgical intervention, rehabilitation, therapy, medication, and
routine follow-ups. During this time, Ms. D has not been able to live independently and has been forced to
reside in a nursing home in a wheelchair.
The parties reached agreement to resolve Ms. D’s allegations for $510,000 after engaging in mediation.
About 1 million Americans are injured, and 17,000 people die, because of
fall
injuries every year: according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. On October 16, 2016,
Large
Retailer operated a store in Watertown, Massachusetts, which was open to the public. The women’s restroom
handicap stall was in a defective condition making it in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Specifically, there was no handle present to close the door, the locking mechanism was broken as
was
the hook on the back of the door provided for patrons’ use.
On or about October 16th, Ms. D, aged 82, was a customer of Large Retailer when she entered the
handicapped
stall and tried to shut the stall door to use the restroom. The latch was broken and there was no handle
for
her to hold the door shut. She used a walker to ambulate, and she had to let go of her walker to use both
hands to attempt to shut the stall door. She attempted to use the broken coat hook on the back of the
stall
door to hold the door shut while she put her finger in the hole of the latch to try and secure the door.
Despite these efforts, she fell.
After a lawsuit was filed, Authorized Representative testified on behalf of Large Retailer regarding ADA
requirements. He testified it was important for Large Retailer to remain in compliance with ADA
requirements
for the safety of its customers. Furthermore, although reluctantly, Authorized Representative agreed that
if
the latch on the handicap stall was broken, it would not be graspable, which, therefore, is in violation
of
the ADA. Finally, Authorized Representative testified that if the latch on the handicap stall was broken,
the stall should be shut down and the latch should be fixed immediately. This was not done on October 16,
2016.
After consulting with an ADA Compliance Consultant, specifically a Certified Access Specialist/
Accessibility Inspector we learned that the Standard of Care that Large Retailer is responsible to comply
with is that all “readily achievable” barriers be removed immediately. The fact that the slide lock
remained
broken and that Large Retailer did not shut down the ADA stall while a contractor or in-house maintenance
personnel repaired the lock, was a deviation from the required standard of care. Furthermore, ADA
Compliance
Consultant opined the absence of a handle, which all parties agree was not there on October 16, 2016, was
in
and of itself a violation of the ADA. Section 404.2.7 of the Federal ADA require that all doors, doorways,
and gates be accessible to all disabled and provide hardware and locking mechanism that can be operable
with
one hand without forcing the user to pinch, tightly grasp or twisting of the wrist to use or operate.
Finally, it was his opinion that Large Retailer did not maintain the minimum standard of care when
maintaining accessible elements within this specific facility.
Dr. S, a Massachusetts physician who is Board-Certified in Orthopedics, explained Ms. D was an 82-year-old
woman who fell while in the bathroom at Large Retailer. She sustained unstable T11 and T12 fractures. This
required surgical treatment. She later suffered from wound breakdown and required a wound debridement
which
followed multiple visits for wound care. Dr. S explains that there can be no doubt that Ms. D sustained a
traumatic thoracic fracture when she fell. The surgery she underwent was directly necessitated by this
fall
and the resultant injury, the rehabilitation she required, as well as the wound care she required, were a
direct result of this injury. She remained bedbound for many months which is also a direct result of this
injury.
As of July 25th of the following year, her progress indicated that she was permanently partially disabled
due to her injury. According to the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment 6th Edition, Ms. D has 25% whole person impairment.
Prior to the incident, Ms. D’s activities included being independent, living on her own, and able to
perform
activities of daily living. Since the October 16th fall, Jeanette D has had to go through a very long,
very
frustrating, and very painful course of surgical intervention, rehabilitation, therapy, medication, and
routine follow-ups. During this time, Ms. D has not been able to live independently and has been forced to
reside in a nursing home in a wheelchair.
The parties reached agreement to resolve Ms. D’s allegations for $510,000 after engaging in mediation.
Slip and Fall
Ms. C
200000
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million
Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injuries and over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually because
of
these injuries.
It is the responsibility of a business owner who is deriving profit from members of the community to make
sure the property is safe for all members of the community.
On July 20th, the Restaurant opened its business to members of our community. The front steps were not in
compliance with the building code. Specifically, the railing failed to extend pass the last step and was
not
graspable in violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 6th Edition. Ms. C, after enjoying dinner
at the restaurant with her husband, walks down the front stairs attempting to use the railing. She is 80
and
she is careful. As she takes her last step, with no railing available, she falls fracturing her left hip,
requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
Ms. C’s can still lift and carry up to 10 pounds; stand and walk for 2-3 hours per day; occasionally climb
stairs without discomfort and occasionally stoop, crouch, and kneel. Further, Ms. C. is not able to walk
at
a reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces.
After a 4-hour mediation only 19 months following the injury, Ms. C was compensated $200,000 for her
losses.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one
million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injuries and over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually
because of these injuries.
It is the responsibility of a business owner who is deriving profit from members of the community to make
sure the property is safe for all members of the community.
On July 20th, the Restaurant opened its business to members of our community. The front steps were not in
compliance with the building code. Specifically, the railing failed to extend pass the last step and was
not
graspable in violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 6th Edition. Ms. C, after enjoying dinner
at the restaurant with her husband, walks down the front stairs attempting to use the railing. She is 80
and
she is careful. As she takes her last step, with no railing available, she falls fracturing her left hip,
requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
Ms. C’s can still lift and carry up to 10 pounds; stand and walk for 2-3 hours per day; occasionally climb
stairs without discomfort and occasionally stoop, crouch, and kneel. Further, Ms. C. is not able to walk
at
a reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces.
After a 4-hour mediation only 19 months following the injury, Ms. C was compensated $200,000 for her
losses.
Car Accident
Christina
40000
When Christina was a passenger on her way home traveling on Gorham Street in Lowell, she didn’t expect that she would get in a car crash and need elbow surgery. Unfortunately, the insurance policies for the vehicles involved only totaled $40,000, and no one had personal assets to pursue. While her injuries were significant and entitled her to the full $40,000, the insurance companies took a ridiculous position and refused to compensate her. She hired us 15 months after the crash and after a year of hard work, we settled the case for all of the available money.
When Christina was a passenger on her way home traveling on Gorham Street in Lowell, she didn’t expect that she would get in a car crash and need elbow surgery. Unfortunately, the insurance policies for the vehicles involved only totaled $40,000, and no one had personal assets to pursue. While her injuries were significant and entitled her to the full $40,000, the insurance companies took a ridiculous position and refused to compensate her. She hired us 15 months after the crash and after a year of hard work, we settled the case for all of the available money.
SHOW MORECar Accident
David C.
92248
When 61 year old David C. was cut off on I95 near Attleboro on September 13, 2015, his Dodge Truck hit the guardrail and rolled over. The other driver fled the scene. David tore his right rotator cuff, his bicep was torn from the bone, he suffered a concussion, and had some major facial bruising and cuts around his eyes. Because the other driver fled, David had to make a claim against his own insurance company using the uninsured motorist portion of his policy. He had a maximum of $100,000 in coverage. His own insurance company only offered us $12,000 for his pain and suffering. We refused to accept it and the arbitrator awarded him $35,091 for his pain and suffering, plus his medical bills, for a total of $91,248.92.
When 61 year old David C. was cut off on I95 near Attleboro on September 13, 2015, his Dodge Truck hit the guardrail and rolled over. The other driver fled the scene. David tore his right rotator cuff, his bicep was torn from the bone, he suffered a concussion, and had some major facial bruising and cuts around his eyes. Because the other driver fled, David had to make a claim against his own insurance company using the uninsured motorist portion of his policy. He had a maximum of $100,000 in coverage. His own insurance company only offered us $12,000 for his pain and suffering. We refused to accept it and the arbitrator awarded him $35,091 for his pain and suffering, plus his medical bills, for a total of $91,248.92.
SHOW MORECar Accident
Dayne P.
210000
Dayne was driving on Route 1A in Rowley when the other driver turned left, causing a head on collision. Dayne needed shoulder surgery as a result of the collision.
Dayne was driving on Route 1A in Rowley when the other driver turned left, causing a head on collision. Dayne needed shoulder surgery as a result of the collision.
SHOW MORECar Accident
Dionisia F.
157000
Dionisia was a passenger in a car traveling on Route 24 in Stoughton when another car sped up to pass them and tried to change lanes, causing the driver of her car to swerve, strike that car, and then hit the guardrail. She sustained injuries that included a punctured liver, internal bleeding, a ruptured spleen and a few broken ribs. Fortunately, she was fully recovered after 6 months.
Dionisia was a passenger in a car traveling on Route 24 in Stoughton when another car sped up to pass them and tried to change lanes, causing the driver of her car to swerve, strike that car, and then hit the guardrail. She sustained injuries that included a punctured liver, internal bleeding, a ruptured spleen and a few broken ribs. Fortunately, she was fully recovered after 6 months.
SHOW MORECar Accident
Shawn P.
631666
When Shawn left his house after the Patriots lost the Superbowl in 2012, he didn’t know his life would change. When a drunk driver crashed into the car in which Shawn was a passenger, Shawn broke his back, fractured ribs and required surgery to recover. We were able to resolve the case against the owner and operator of the vehicle, as well as the bars where the driver was drinking prior to the crash.
When Shawn left his house after the Patriots lost the Superbowl in 2012, he didn’t know his life would change. When a drunk driver crashed into the car in which Shawn was a passenger, Shawn broke his back, fractured ribs and required surgery to recover. We were able to resolve the case against the owner and operator of the vehicle, as well as the bars where the driver was drinking prior to the crash.
SHOW MORESlip and Fall
Marie J.
210000
Marie slipped on a wet floor at a nursing home while working as a health aid, causing her to be out of work for an extended period of time and require significant medical care.
Marie slipped on a wet floor at a nursing home while working as a health aid, causing her to be out of work for an extended period of time and require significant medical care.
SHOW MORECar Accident
Paul R.
250000
Our client was rear-ended and suffered painful injuries. But because there wasn’t a lot of obvious damage to his car, the insurance company refused to pay him any money, arguing that his injuries were preexisting. Attorney Michelle Newton believed in our client and refused to be intimidated by the insurance company’s legal team. Using the latest technology and extensive knowledge of the law, Michelle was able to secure $250,000 in damages for our client.
Our client was rear-ended and suffered painful injuries. But because there wasn’t a lot of obvious damage to his car, the insurance company refused to pay him any money, arguing that his injuries were preexisting. Attorney Michelle Newton believed in our client and refused to be intimidated by the insurance company’s legal team. Using the latest technology and extensive knowledge of the law, Michelle was able to secure $250,000 in damages for our client.
SHOW MOREWorkers’ Compensation
Robert P.
175000
Our client was employed as an EMS technician when he suffered a disc herniation. The insurance company didn’t want to cover the full costs of his medical treatment and lost wages, but Attorney David DiCenso fought hard and secured $175,000 in compensation for our client.
Our client was employed as an EMS technician when he suffered a disc herniation. The insurance company didn’t want to cover the full costs of his medical treatment and lost wages, but Attorney David DiCenso fought hard and secured $175,000 in compensation for our client.
SHOW MORECar Accident
Mr. J
200000
Based on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive
Sampling
System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) data, about 40 percent of the estimated 5,811,000 crashes that
occurred in the United States in 2018 were intersection-related crashes. Failure to pay attention and
yield
the right of way results in life altering crashes.
On August 26th, Mr. J was operating a box truck in the scope of his employment with a local construction
company when he failed to pay attention and yield the right of way to Ms. R as he attempted a left turn
from a
convenience store parking lot in Keene, New Hampshire. Mr. J’s box truck struck Ms. R’s vehicle. The force
of
the impact caused the 76-year-old Ms. R’s right femur to snap, requiring the surgical implantation of
hardware. At the time of discharge from the hospital one month later, Ms. R was utilizing a walker with
weight
bearing as tolerated. She continued to need assistance with some most of her activities of daily living,
most
importantly, stair walking.
Ms. R received a $200,000 settlement 13 months after the crash, without ever stepping foot inside a
courtroom.
This money was to compensate her for the difficulties she experiences when she tries to drive. She lives
alone
and can no longer go to the grocery, pharmacy, hairdresser, or doctor on her own. She must rely on others
to
help her with activities she was performing on her own herself only the day before the crash.
Based on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National
Automotive
Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) data, about 40 percent of the estimated 5,811,000
crashes
that occurred in the United States in 2018 were intersection-related crashes. Failure to pay attention and
yield the right of way results in life altering crashes.
On August 26th, Mr. J was operating a box truck in the scope of his employment with a local construction
company when he failed to pay attention and yield the right of way to Ms. R as he attempted a left turn
from a
convenience store parking lot in Keene, New Hampshire. Mr. J’s box truck struck Ms. R’s vehicle. The force
of
the impact caused the 76-year-old Ms. R’s right femur to snap, requiring the surgical implantation of
hardware. At the time of discharge from the hospital one month later, Ms. R was utilizing a walker with
weight
bearing as tolerated. She continued to need assistance with some most of her activities of daily living,
most
importantly, stair walking.
Ms. R received a $200,000 settlement 13 months after the crash, without ever stepping foot inside a
courtroom.
This money was to compensate her for the difficulties she experiences when she tries to drive. She lives
alone
and can no longer go to the grocery, pharmacy, hairdresser, or doctor on her own. She must rely on others
to
help her with activities she was performing on her own herself only the day before the crash.
Slip and Fall
Ms. C
200000
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million
Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injuries and over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually because
of
these injuries.
It is the responsibility of a business owner who is deriving profit from members of the community to make
sure
the property is safe for all members of the community.
On July 20th, the Restaurant opened its business to members of our community. The front steps were not in
compliance with the building code. Specifically, the railing failed to extend pass the last step and was
not
graspable in violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 6th Edition. Ms. C, after enjoying dinner
at
the restaurant with her husband, walks down the front stairs attempting to use the railing. She is 80 and
she
is careful. As she takes her last step, with no railing available, she falls fracturing her left hip,
requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
Ms. C’s can still lift and carry up to 10 pounds; stand and walk for 2-3 hours per day; occasionally climb
stairs without discomfort and occasionally stoop, crouch, and kneel. Further, Ms. C. is not able to walk
at a
reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces.
After a 4-hour mediation only 19 months following the injury, Ms. C was compensated $200,000 for her
losses.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one
million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injuries and over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually
because of these injuries.
It is the responsibility of a business owner who is deriving profit from members of the community to make
sure
the property is safe for all members of the community.
On July 20th, the Restaurant opened its business to members of our community. The front steps were not in
compliance with the building code. Specifically, the railing failed to extend pass the last step and was
not
graspable in violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 6th Edition. Ms. C, after enjoying dinner
at
the restaurant with her husband, walks down the front stairs attempting to use the railing. She is 80 and
she
is careful. As she takes her last step, with no railing available, she falls fracturing her left hip,
requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
Ms. C’s can still lift and carry up to 10 pounds; stand and walk for 2-3 hours per day; occasionally climb
stairs without discomfort and occasionally stoop, crouch, and kneel. Further, Ms. C. is not able to walk
at a
reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces.
After a 4-hour mediation only 19 months following the injury, Ms. C was compensated $200,000 for her
losses.
Slip and Fall
Ms. D
510000
About 1 million Americans are injured, and 17,000 people die, because of fall
injuries
every year: according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. On October 16, 2016, Large
Retailer
operated a store in Watertown, Massachusetts, which was open to the public. The women’s restroom handicap
stall was in a defective condition making it in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Specifically, there was no handle present to close the door, the locking mechanism was broken as was the
hook
on the back of the door provided for patrons’ use.
On or about October 16th, Ms. D, aged 82, was a customer of Large Retailer when she entered the
handicapped
stall and tried to shut the stall door to use the restroom. The latch was broken and there was no handle
for
her to hold the door shut. She used a walker to ambulate, and she had to let go of her walker to use both
hands to attempt to shut the stall door. She attempted to use the broken coat hook on the back of the
stall
door to hold the door shut while she put her finger in the hole of the latch to try and secure the door.
Despite these efforts, she fell.
After a lawsuit was filed, Authorized Representative testified on behalf of Large Retailer regarding ADA
requirements. He testified it was important for Large Retailer to remain in compliance with ADA
requirements
for the safety of its customers. Furthermore, although reluctantly, Authorized Representative agreed that
if
the latch on the handicap stall was broken, it would not be graspable, which, therefore, is in violation
of
the ADA. Finally, Authorized Representative testified that if the latch on the handicap stall was broken,
the
stall should be shut down and the latch should be fixed immediately. This was not done on October 16,
2016.
After consulting with an ADA Compliance Consultant, specifically a Certified Access Specialist/
Accessibility
Inspector we learned that the Standard of Care that Large Retailer is responsible to comply with is that
all
“readily achievable” barriers be removed immediately. The fact that the slide lock remained broken and
that
Large Retailer did not shut down the ADA stall while a contractor or in-house maintenance personnel
repaired
the lock, was a deviation from the required standard of care. Furthermore, ADA Compliance Consultant
opined
the absence of a handle, which all parties agree was not there on October 16, 2016, was in and of itself a
violation of the ADA. Section 404.2.7 of the Federal ADA require that all doors, doorways, and gates be
accessible to all disabled and provide hardware and locking mechanism that can be operable with one hand
without forcing the user to pinch, tightly grasp or twisting of the wrist to use or operate. Finally, it
was
his opinion that Large Retailer did not maintain the minimum standard of care when maintaining accessible
elements within this specific facility.
Dr. S, a Massachusetts physician who is Board-Certified in Orthopedics, explained Ms. D was an 82-year-old
woman who fell while in the bathroom at Large Retailer. She sustained unstable T11 and T12 fractures. This
required surgical treatment. She later suffered from wound breakdown and required a wound debridement
which
followed multiple visits for wound care. Dr. S explains that there can be no doubt that Ms. D sustained a
traumatic thoracic fracture when she fell. The surgery she underwent was directly necessitated by this
fall
and the resultant injury, the rehabilitation she required, as well as the wound care she required, were a
direct result of this injury. She remained bedbound for many months which is also a direct result of this
injury.
As of July 25th of the following year, her progress indicated that she was permanently partially disabled
due
to her injury. According to the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment
6th Edition, Ms. D has 25% whole person impairment.
Prior to the incident, Ms. D’s activities included being independent, living on her own, and able to
perform
activities of daily living. Since the October 16th fall, Jeanette D has had to go through a very long,
very
frustrating, and very painful course of surgical intervention, rehabilitation, therapy, medication, and
routine follow-ups. During this time, Ms. D has not been able to live independently and has been forced to
reside in a nursing home in a wheelchair.
The parties reached agreement to resolve Ms. D’s allegations for $510,000 after engaging in mediation.
About 1 million Americans are injured, and 17,000 people die, because of
fall
injuries every year: according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. On October 16, 2016,
Large
Retailer operated a store in Watertown, Massachusetts, which was open to the public. The women’s restroom
handicap stall was in a defective condition making it in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Specifically, there was no handle present to close the door, the locking mechanism was broken as
was
the hook on the back of the door provided for patrons’ use.
On or about October 16th, Ms. D, aged 82, was a customer of Large Retailer when she entered the
handicapped
stall and tried to shut the stall door to use the restroom. The latch was broken and there was no handle
for
her to hold the door shut. She used a walker to ambulate, and she had to let go of her walker to use both
hands to attempt to shut the stall door. She attempted to use the broken coat hook on the back of the
stall
door to hold the door shut while she put her finger in the hole of the latch to try and secure the door.
Despite these efforts, she fell.
After a lawsuit was filed, Authorized Representative testified on behalf of Large Retailer regarding ADA
requirements. He testified it was important for Large Retailer to remain in compliance with ADA
requirements
for the safety of its customers. Furthermore, although reluctantly, Authorized Representative agreed that
if
the latch on the handicap stall was broken, it would not be graspable, which, therefore, is in violation
of
the ADA. Finally, Authorized Representative testified that if the latch on the handicap stall was broken,
the
stall should be shut down and the latch should be fixed immediately. This was not done on October 16,
2016.
After consulting with an ADA Compliance Consultant, specifically a Certified Access Specialist/
Accessibility
Inspector we learned that the Standard of Care that Large Retailer is responsible to comply with is that
all
“readily achievable” barriers be removed immediately. The fact that the slide lock remained broken and
that
Large Retailer did not shut down the ADA stall while a contractor or in-house maintenance personnel
repaired
the lock, was a deviation from the required standard of care. Furthermore, ADA Compliance Consultant
opined
the absence of a handle, which all parties agree was not there on October 16, 2016, was in and of itself a
violation of the ADA. Section 404.2.7 of the Federal ADA require that all doors, doorways, and gates be
accessible to all disabled and provide hardware and locking mechanism that can be operable with one hand
without forcing the user to pinch, tightly grasp or twisting of the wrist to use or operate. Finally, it
was
his opinion that Large Retailer did not maintain the minimum standard of care when maintaining accessible
elements within this specific facility.
Dr. S, a Massachusetts physician who is Board-Certified in Orthopedics, explained Ms. D was an 82-year-old
woman who fell while in the bathroom at Large Retailer. She sustained unstable T11 and T12 fractures. This
required surgical treatment. She later suffered from wound breakdown and required a wound debridement
which
followed multiple visits for wound care. Dr. S explains that there can be no doubt that Ms. D sustained a
traumatic thoracic fracture when she fell. The surgery she underwent was directly necessitated by this
fall
and the resultant injury, the rehabilitation she required, as well as the wound care she required, were a
direct result of this injury. She remained bedbound for many months which is also a direct result of this
injury.
As of July 25th of the following year, her progress indicated that she was permanently partially disabled
due
to her injury. According to the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment
6th Edition, Ms. D has 25% whole person impairment.
Prior to the incident, Ms. D’s activities included being independent, living on her own, and able to
perform
activities of daily living. Since the October 16th fall, Jeanette D has had to go through a very long,
very
frustrating, and very painful course of surgical intervention, rehabilitation, therapy, medication, and
routine follow-ups. During this time, Ms. D has not been able to live independently and has been forced to
reside in a nursing home in a wheelchair.
The parties reached agreement to resolve Ms. D’s allegations for $510,000 after engaging in mediation.
Bus Injury
Ms. E
305000
A study from the University of Michigan found that, on average, about 63,000 buses of all types are
involved
in bus accidents. About 14,000 of these resulted in injuries. In our situation, Bus Company distributed
Safety
Bulletins to Driver to address safety issues. These issues included potential for injuries at the rear
doors
of the bus. Bus Company was required by Federal Law to report serious injuries to the United States
Department
of Transportation. Furthermore, Bus Company was required to remain ADA compliant and train employees
regarding
the needs of elderly passengers. Bus Company reported injuries to its insurance company but failed to
investigate or take corrective measures internally.
On March 6th, Ms. E was a passenger on a Bus Company bus at Logan Airport. She attempted to exit the rear
door
of the bus at her Terminal. She requested help with her bag, however, she was ignored. As she attempted to
exit, the rear door caught her foot and she fell. Bus Company’s own safety procedures require the bus be
stopped within one foot of the curb to allow safe exit by its passengers. This reduces the distance
between
the bus and the sidewalk allowing for a safe step onto the sidewalk. When Ms. E exited the bus, it was
over
two feet from the curb.
Accordingly, Driver ignored Bus Company’s own Safety Rules. Bus Company failed to train and monitor its
drivers to follow its Safety Rules.
The fall resulted in a Weber Type B distal fibula fracture of Ms. E’s right ankle, requiring surgery and
the
insertion of hardware. Ms. E’s doctor’s medical opinion is that Ms. E has a 12% impairment of the right
lower
extremity which is equivalent to 8% of the whole person solely from the injury of March 6th.
Rather than risk the uncertainty of trial, Ms. E. resolved her claims against Bus Company at mediation for
$305,000.
A study from the University of Michigan found that, on average, about 63,000 buses of all types are
involved
in bus accidents. About 14,000 of these resulted in injuries. In our situation, Bus Company distributed
Safety
Bulletins to Driver to address safety issues. These issues included potential for injuries at the rear
doors
of the bus. Bus Company was required by Federal Law to report serious injuries to the United States
Department
of Transportation. Furthermore, Bus Company was required to remain ADA compliant and train employees
regarding
the needs of elderly passengers. Bus Company reported injuries to its insurance company but failed to
investigate or take corrective measures internally.
On March 6th, Ms. E was a passenger on a Bus Company bus at Logan Airport. She attempted to exit the rear
door
of the bus at her Terminal. She requested help with her bag, however, she was ignored. As she attempted to
exit, the rear door caught her foot and she fell. Bus Company’s own safety procedures require the bus be
stopped within one foot of the curb to allow safe exit by its passengers. This reduces the distance
between
the bus and the sidewalk allowing for a safe step onto the sidewalk. When Ms. E exited the bus, it was
over
two feet from the curb.
Accordingly, Driver ignored Bus Company’s own Safety Rules. Bus Company failed to train and monitor its
drivers to follow its Safety Rules.
The fall resulted in a Weber Type B distal fibula fracture of Ms. E’s right ankle, requiring surgery and
the
insertion of hardware. Ms. E’s doctor’s medical opinion is that Ms. E has a 12% impairment of the right
lower
extremity which is equivalent to 8% of the whole person solely from the injury of March 6th.
Rather than risk the uncertainty of trial, Ms. E. resolved her claims against Bus Company at mediation for
$305,000.