Source: https://www.sugarman.com/experience/appellate-cases
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:12:16+00:00

Document:
We don't just follow the law - sometimes we make it.
Throughout the history of the firm, SUGARMAN attorneys have been instrumental in helping to shape personal injury law in Massachusetts through verdicts and appellate decisions. These decisions have not only upheld jury verdicts that SUGARMAN has obtained on behalf of its clients, but some have also conferred new rights of recovery for injured parties and their families.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment in favor of SUGARMAN's client following a jury verdict and post-trial motions by SUGARMAN that led the trial judge to award a substantial increase to damages found by jury. In this car accident lawsuit, the client sustained severe injuries when his vehicle was struck by a cable company truck.
In an action brought by the widow and injured co-workers of a Massachusetts transportation company employee for a defectively designed warning device (train horn), SUGARMAN attorneys reached a settlement on behalf of their clients when the court denied the defendant horn manufacturer's motion for Summary Judgment. The manufacturer tried to argue, unsuccessfully, that the horn was not defective and did not play a role in causing the accident.
After SUGARMAN lawyers successfully resolved a product liability action in favor of a machine worker injured by a defective industrial machine (recovering a substantial settlement from the machine manufacturer), the worker's employer tried to bring an action against the same manufacturer for its business loss. The machine manufacturer successfully defeated the claims of the employer.
The dismissal of the plaintiff’s case by the trial court was reversed, and a new trial was ordered. In the Appellate Court, SUGARMAN lawyers successfully argued that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence, and that a jury could reasonably infer that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Product liability claim as a result of bovine collagen injections were not pre-empted by Federal pre-market approval process and resulted in injuries.
Pursuant to a court-approved settlement under G. L. c. 152, §15, the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund cannot avoid its obligation of reimbursing any monies paid by a worker’s compensation insurance company.
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a jury verdict won by SUGARMAN lawyers for a teenager who was injured in a car crash. The case established that the teenager's parents could also recover damages for their injuries that resulted from their son's physical injury.
The Superior Court's judgment for the defendant was overturned because the extent of the duty owed by the City to an injured child was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and the defendant could not avoid liability under the discretionary function exemption of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G. L. c. 258, §10(b)). At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs damages for injuries to a child trespasser after his arm was run over by a train as he walked along railroad tracks on his way to school.
The defendant's motion to dismiss was properly denied after the defendants waived immunity under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §688 (1982 & Supp. III 1985), and under general admiralty law for liability up to $100,000 pursuant to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258, §2.
A judgment won by SUGARMAN attorneys against the United States was upheld in a case of medical malpractice, in which the physician failed to diagnose throat cancer.
In a case involving a mid-air collision, the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because the United States can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for failure to issue a traffic advisory. The trial that followed resulted in a jury award to SUGARMAN's client for a below-the-knee amputation suffered by a student pilot in a mid-air collision caused by a negligent air traffic controller and another pilot.
A jury verdict found for a worker whose hand was injured in a press in a product liability/defective product lawsuit. Upheld on appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the negligence and breach of warranty by a product manufacturer was a violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute (G. L. 93A, §9(4)).
The United States District Court decided in favor of injured patient who suffered severe complications from a drug manufactured by defendant drug company and allowed evidence at trial of post-injury warnings ordered by FDA. The case settled before the jury began deliberations.
A jury verdict in favor of a worker injured by a defective machine was affirmed on appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Even though the jury found that the worker’s use of the machine was unreasonable, it also found that the manufacturer of the machine was negligent in its design.
SUGARMAN lawyers won appeal, which established that the Turnpike Authority was not immune from a suit in which it caused a quadriplegic injury, and that the amount of recovery was not limited by statute.
A new trial was granted, allowing SUGARMAN lawyers to present the plaintiff’s claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against the defendant.
Allowed suit against doctor employed at University of Massachusetts, even though employees of the Commonwealth are generally immune from suit.
The defendant did not pay workers' compensation benefits to the plaintiff, and as a result, did not receive the benefit of the workers' compensation exemption of employers from tort liability.
The statue of limitations is a matter of procedure governed by the law of the forum state.
After a 13-year-old was run over by an MBTA trolley, the teenager's foot was amputated. The jury verdict was affirmed on appeal, with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that the defendant waived its defense under G. L. c. 161A, §21, and that the damages awarded were not excessive.
A patient was injured when surgical blade broke in her back during spinal surgery. Verdict for SUGARMAN's client was upheld when the defendants expressly waived their objections to the admission of evidence by failing to properly preserve their argument under Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(a).
A cause of action does not accrue in medical malpractice cases under G.L. c. 260, §4 until the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have known, of the harm from the defendant’s conduct. This decision allowed SUGARMAN lawyers to bring a claim on behalf of our client.
Established precedent allowing legal malpractice suits to continue after the death of the defendant's attorney.
G. L. c. 175, §113L, which requires every automobile to have coverage for injuries caused by uninsured autos, does not entitle a family to stack its uninsured coverage and obtain additional protection or compensation from vehicles other than the one that was involved in the accident.
Under the long-arm statute, the court had jurisdiction over the defendant, a California corporation, which manufactured and sold its products in Massachusetts, where the plaintiff resided. The decision allowed SUGARMAN lawyers to bring a claim in Massachusetts on behalf of our client.

References: §15
 §10
 §688
 §2
 §9
 §21
 §4
 §113