Articles Tagged with jury

Published on:

juryIn July of 2008, Genevieve Calandro was a patient at a nursing home in Danvers, Massachusetts.  After an injury in which Ms. Calandro fell from her chair she was brought to the hospital where she was found to have pressure ulcers on her back side, appendicitis, a urinary tract infection, kidney failure, and a slew of other ailments that one might think would be remedied in a nursing home or long term care setting.  Instead, due to the inaction on part of the nursing care facility, these ailments were exacerbated due to the neglect of those that were charged with taking care of the elderly patient.  While doctors and nurses at the hospital made their best attempt at helping Ms. Calandro, she ultimately succumbed to death due to the host of problems that her estate claims were a direct result of the negligence on part of the health care facility.

The estate of Ms. Calandro brought a wrongful death suit against Radius Health Care Center, claiming that the facility was grossly negligent in the care and treatment of the decedent.  The family of Ms. Calandro claimed that they were repeatedly assured that Ms. Calandro was doing well and progressing as she should in light of complaints Ms. Calandro made to her family.  In response to various questions and criticisms by the family, the facility claimed that Ms. Calandro was just experiencing a flu that was going around the facility.  Little did the family know that any potential flu was the least of her problems.

Among the causes of action put forward by the estate, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant facility was grossly negligent.  Gross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence.  In order to support a finding of gross negligence, the conduct of a defendant must be characterized by a high degree of culpability and indifference to duty.  Gross negligence is commonly defined as very great, or excessive, negligence.  It is something more than momentary thoughtlessness (such as a car accident) or a slight error of judgment.  It implies an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care individuals or organizations may owe to another. Continue reading →

Published on:

movie-house-771223-mAlthough property owners are not responsible for preventing every instance of violence, they must take reasonable steps to secure the premises in appropriate circumstances.  A negligent (or inadequate) security claim arises when a person is injured due to the poor or unreasonable safety precautions established by the premises owner.  In a case recently decided by the Appellate Court of Massachusetts, the Court held that a woman who alleged she was raped in the bathroom of Regal Cinemas in Bellingham could not have a new trial after judgment was entered for the Defendant cinema.  The Plaintiff claimed that Regal Cinemas should be held liable under the theory of negligent supervision, specifically, that the Defendant organization had policies or procedures in place that exacerbated or made it possible for such an egregious act to occur on its property.

The failure of a homeowner, business owner, or premises owner to prevent a crime does not establish the owner’s liability in a negligent security case.  Instead, the court will determine whether the underlying crime was foreseeable to the owner.  When a crime is reasonably foreseeable to occur on the premises of another there may be a duty to protect, and thus, negligence may attach.  The court has held that when it comes to security of premises, a landowner is not an insurer of land.  However, the court has articulated that liability may be warranted in certain circumstances which hinge on the foreseeability of the underlying acts: Continue reading →