litigation Tag Archives — Lowell Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Snow and Ice Injuries

Published on: February 22, 2021 | by Marcotte Law Firm LLC

In Part 1, we discussed the duty owed by property owners in terms of snow and ice removal. In this post, we will discuss what happens if you are injured after slipping on ice or snow. It is important to know what steps are available to you and what, if any, fault you may have in the matter.

As noted in the previous post, it used to be much harder to recover damages from a slip and fall caused by snow and ice. A 2010 Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) case (Papadopoulos v. Target Corp) overturned an over-a-century-old law regarding the accumulation of snow. The duty placed on property owners was raised and it became easier to prove negligence. However, just because it became “easier,” does not mean collecting damages will be easy. There are still multiple factors at play.

All slip and fall cases fall under a class of personal injury claims requiring you to prove negligence. You must establish a duty, a failure to meet that duty, injuries, and that the breach of duty caused those injuries. In a case of snow and ice-induced slip and fall case, the duty owed is by the landowner and he or she owes you “reasonable care” for a safe walking environment, that is, free of ice and snow. Further, you must suffer a significant injury, for example, sprained or broken bones or traumatic brain injury from hitting your head. Finally, you need to establish that the ice was the cause of your slip and fall.

The Anatomy of a Lawsuit

Published on: November 30, 2020 | by Marcotte Law Firm LLC

The main goal of personal injury lawsuit is to make people whole after an injury caused someone’s negligence. This compensation is usually broken down into three parts: medical expenses, lost earning capacity (lost wages), and pain & suffering. However, many people don’t realize that there’s a lot more to proving a case in front of a jury.

If you suffered harm due to the action, or failure to act, by another person, group of persons, or business, you may have a personal injury lawsuit. In law books, the technical term is commonly known as a “cause of action.” A cause of action is a set of facts under which one person sues another person, business, or organization.

A cause of action can arise in a variety of ways. First, it can occur due to either an act or even a failure to act. This means that some cases happen because someone didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Others arise because someone did something improperly. A cause of action can also arise on account of a breach of duty, or a violation of the law. This means that there is a law or other regulation that requires someone to act a certain way, and then that person or entity doesn’t meet those requirements. Obviously, the circumstances of the facts of your case will have an impact on your cause of action.

September Victories for Marcotte Law Firm

Published on: October 9, 2020 | by Marcotte Law Firm LLC

September saw a couple of significant victories as Marcotte Law Firm is settling into its new locale.

Sean Kelly secured a not guilty verdict for a client charged with drunk driving after slamming into the rear of a car whose driver had stopped on a New Hampshire country road to turn left. The investigating officers determined that the client had failed field sobriety tests, and they admitted to consuming alcohol an hour earlier. The municipality did not use breathalyzers but opted for blood tests administered at a local hospital. The suspect declined, as they later would explain due to fear of COVID. Unlike Massachusetts, refusal to take the test can serve as evidence against the accused. The client testified that the accident occurred because they had gotten lost and was checking GPS. When they looked up, the vehicle ahead had stopped.

The collision, however, was substantial. Attorney Kelly not only questioned the officer’s conclusions on the field sobriety tests (first having mastered all the training and grading methodology taught to the police), but also argued that any deficiencies in her performance were equally explained by the severity of the collision. The prosecution could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever symptoms might have been attributed to alcohol could as easily have been due to the collision. Ironically, our client might have been guilty of distracted driving, but was never charged with it. Happily, they have been extra cautious since.