Source: https://www.massachusetts-injurylawyerblog.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:39:37+00:00

Document:
In Massachusetts, “negligence” is defined as a legal duty and a failure to act or omission in violation of that duty results in negligence. Royal Indem. Co. v. Pittsfield Elec. Co., 293 Mass. 4, 6 (1935); and M.G.L. Ch. 283, §85. For an action in negligence to lie, a causal connection must be established between a defendant’s negligence and a plaintiff’s injury or damage. Cannon v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 374 Mass. 739, 742 (1978); Baggs v. Hirschfield, 293 Mass. 1, 3 (1935); Sullivan v. Old Colony St. Ry., 200 Mass. 303, 307-308 (1908). See also Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141 (2006).
A recent case reported in Illinois illustrates an analysis of whether or not a duty arises. Roh v. Starbucks Corp No. 16-4033 (7th Cir. 2018). In 2013 parents, Marcus and Beebe Roh visited a Starbucks store with their 3 year old and five year old sons. The Starbucks store had commissioned custom free-standing stanchions connected by ropes to direct the flow of customer foot traffic. The stanchions were not affixed to the floor but were made with heavy concrete bases. During the Roh’s visit one of the stanchions was knocked to the ground injuring one of their children’s hands.
The injury required the child’s left middle finger to be surgically amputated and a pin to be inserted into another finger.
Is there a path with ancient tire tracks or what looks like an old a dirt or gravel road or undeveloped right of way near your land? Perhaps just a simple path through the trees between you and your neighbor’s yard? Have you or someone else in your neighborhood learned of a plan of land or survey or town map that depicts a road or path but it doesn’t physically exist on the ground? Maybe the issue came up when a neighbor started arguing with you; claiming a right of way to travel over or on a path through your property, where the path is the boundary between your parcel and his or hers? Land titles on the North Shore and throughout Massachusetts go back hundreds of years. There are paths and ways, discontinued streets and narrow roads carved between parcels as the developers created subdivisions. It is not uncommon to find sub-division plans where a narrow swath is between lots and never sold or conveyed by the old owner (even after all of the lots have been sold off). In many circumstances this creates a private way, right of way or paper street.
When that occurs: who owns it, who has rights to use the path, and for what purpose? The answers often require a title examination and analysis of Massachusetts case law and statutes. One law to consider is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 183 s. 58, also known as the “Derelict Fee Statute”.
According to a study conducted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in 2016 there were 119 drunk driving deaths in Massachusetts, which comprised 31 percent of all traffic fatalities in the state. Drunk driving is often thought of as a criminal violation; but alcohol related accidents also open the door to civil liability, and not just for the drunk driver.
In Massachusetts, the person(s) who served the alcohol to the drunk driver may be held liable to the injured third party under the legal theory known as “social host liability”. The common law theory of social host liability was first recognized by Massachusetts courts in McGuiggan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 398 Mass. 152 (1986). In McGuiggan, the defendants hosted a party at their home and provided alcohol to their guests. One of the guests became intoxicated and left with the defendants’ son to drive three other guests home. Due to the drunk guest’s negligent driving, the defendants’ son was injured and died. The court in McGuiggan found that the defendants were not liable for the death because there was no evidence that they knew the driver was intoxicated at any time while he was at their home.
Both Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to “cram down” or “strip off” a secured lien under certain circumstances.
The so-called “cram down” statute for Chapter 11 proceedings is contained in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b), which allows a bankruptcy court to approve a debtor’s reorganization plan over the objections of a secured creditor so long as the plan is “fair and equitable.” This includes a reorganization plan that modifies the loan terms of a secured loan to convert a portion or the entire loan amount into unsecured debt.
Few things sour relations between neighbors as quickly as a boundary dispute. Determining common boundaries or establishing a property line with your neighbor is usually a matter of reviewing record title documents that set forth the metes and bounds of the properties, record plans and tax maps. However, over years of actual use, occupation, improvements, landscaping or fencing, complicated legal issues can arise affecting the ownership of boundaries and causing disputes between or among adjoining land owners. Despite plans and surveys and metes and bounds legal descriptions, ownership of land and the actual boundary line can be challenged in certain circumstances. This happens with adjoining land owners throughout the North Shore including Danvers, Saugus, Lynn and Peabody.
For example, title to land can be acquired (or lost) if the land at issue is used in a particular way for a long time (no less than 20 years) by someone who is not the record owner. This is known as the legal doctrine of adverse possession.
In Massachusetts title by adverse possession can be acquired by proof of nonpermissive use which is actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse for twenty years. A determination of adverse possession is fact driven and each element needs to be proven in court to have clear title through adverse possession. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, claims for adverse possession can be brought in the Land Court or the Superior Court in the county where the disputed land is situated. For instance, if the property is here in Lynnfield, an action for adverse possession may be commenced in the Land Court or the Essex County Superior Court.
Massachusetts automobile insurance policies are complex legal documents with confusing terms and conditions. Understanding what you are covered for, after you are injured in an accident, can be tricky. Whether you reside in Middlesex County, Essex County, Suffolk or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, knowing which coverages are required, which are optional and what coverage may be best for you, is complicated. All too often, car owners’ pay the monthly or annual auto insurance premium without thought to the extent of coverage. It only comes into play after an accident, perhaps driving along Route 1 from Peabody, Danvers and Lynnfield into Boston; or Route 128 to the North Shore Mall. Only after an accident do most of us look at the level of coverage in the auto insurance policy and then it is too late to increase values. Once the accident occurs you cannot retroactively alter your coverage.
Be sure to discuss with your insurance agent whether or not your circumstances warrant increasing those limits beyond the minimum requirement. In addition, when it comes to “Optional” coverages, particularly with respect to coverage for medical bills and treatment related to an auto accident, being pennywise may be foolish.
The above chart shows that Personal Injury Protection “PIP” coverage is mandatory. PIP covers medical expense costs and lost wages of occupants of the insured vehicle resulting from an accident regardless of who is at fault. However, PIP coverage only pays up to $8,000.00 and only pays up to $2,000.00 if you have health insurance. And then, what if your health insurance has a $2000.00 deductible and 20% co-pay?
Medical Payments coverage, or MedPay, is optional. It is Part 6 of the current Massachusetts Automobile Insurance Policy. If you have MedPay coverage it will help pay medical expenses in the event of an accident. Like PIP, Med Pay coverage applies regardless of who is at fault.
MedPay coverage can be used after PIP Coverage and health insurance limits are exceeded. Given the small added premium, it is an option most drivers’ should consider. MedPay also covers out of pocket expenses that may not be covered by your health insurance, such as dental bills, prosthetics, over the counter medical costs and, in worst case scenario, funeral expenses.
In a recent Massachusetts Superior Court case, DeOliveira v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the insurance company refused to reimburse its insured under her MedPay coverage for medical expenses she paid out of pocket. The insured sued the insurance company. The Superior Court Judge denied the insurance company’s motion to dismiss the insured’s claim. Suffolk Superior Court C.A. No. 17-00218-BLS1. The Judge in DeOliveira relied upon an earlier case, Kirby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1136 (2016). In Kirby, the plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. She had health insurance. Her auto insurance company paid the first $2,000 in medical expenses under her PIP coverage. Her health insurer then paid an additional $4,956.67 but placed a lien on her negligence claim against the at-fault driver. She paid the $4,956.67 back to her health insurance carrier to satisfy the lien and then submitted a claim under her own MedPay coverage for reimbursement of the $4,956.67. Her auto insurance company refused to reimburse her. The Appeals Court in Massachusetts affirmed judgment in her favor and ordered her auto insurer to reimburse her under her MedPay coverage.
Optional coverages available to you under your automobile policy may increase your premium payment can but prove invaluable if you need to submit a claim for medical expenses from a car accident. MedPay is just one of the important options every MA licensed driver should consider.
On November 25, 2015 Chapter 141, Acts of 2015, An Act Clearing Titles to Foreclosed Properties, was signed into Massachusetts law by Governor Baker. Massachusetts Senate Bill 2015 now Chapter 141 of the Acts of 2015 is commonly called the Massachusetts Foreclosure Title Clearing Statute and it became effective on December 31, 2015. The general purpose of this new law was to alleviate uncertainty in titles to foreclosed properties after the Ibanez decision and establish a deadline by which challenges to them may be raised or forever barred.
The Act amended Mass. Gen. Law c. 244 s. 15 to include a three-year time limit for challenging a recorded foreclosure affidavit. After three years from the date of recording, a foreclosure affidavit shall be conclusive evidence in favor of arm’s length purchasers for value against challenges by foreclosed borrowers who no longer occupy the subject property. After that the affidavit of sale provides clear title to the arm’s length third party purchaser even if the underlying foreclosure contained certain defects. In order to have a right to challenge the validity of a foreclosure sale in Massachusetts under the new act, an action (lawsuit) must commence AND a correct copy of the complaint or pleading asserting the challenge must be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county in which the property lies, all within the three-year period.
The Statute also provided a one-year grace period for borrowers to challenge pre-2016 foreclosures that occurred under mortgagee’s power of sale in Massachusetts. Aggrieved parties who wished to challenge such a foreclosure had from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 to comply with the terms of the new statutory requirements to preserve their challenge or they would be barred from doing so.

References: v. 
 §85
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1129
 v. 
 v.