While there are specific laws and regulations relative to operating on waterways, as a general rule, operators of watercraft (boats, jet skis, etc.) are subject to the same liability standards as an operator of any motor vehicle. Simply put, the owner or operator of a boat or jet ski may be liable for injuries proximately caused by that owner’s negligence or recklessness. The mere happening of a watercraft accident, however, does not necessarily mean that an owner or operator was negligent or reckless.
In this day of modern medicine, medical procedures have become more complex and treatment has become more specialized. Advances in diagnostic testing have led to the possibilities and expectations of earlier detection and treatment of medical issues. Despite all the advances in technology and improvements in care, not all medical treatment provides the desired results and not all procedures go according to plan. In those instances, the question often arises as to whether there is a viable claim for malpractice.
There are multiple potential parties who may bear responsibility for injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident caused by an individual operating under the influence of alcohol. First and foremost, the intoxicated driver will have liability for such damages. However, further investigation should be conducted to determine where that driver was served and/or consumed alcohol.
Private, or hard money, loans are rarely a problem unless and until the borrower experiences financial issues. A borrower's issues can arise out of the cost overruns, mismanagement, or a downturn in the market, among other things. By their very nature, hard money loans are secured by real estate (or "hard" assets) and are at traditionally lower loan-to-value (LTV) ratios than institutional lenders (since borrower credit worthiness normally excludes lower rate institutional loans). When borrowers find themselves in trouble (and in default under the loan) they often times seek leverage against the lender by filing suit.
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 140, section 155, states in relevant part, that “[i]f any dog shall do damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper….shall be liable for such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing such dog.” Section 155 of Chapter 140 is known as the Massachusetts “Dog Bite Statute”. That nickname, however, is somewhat of a misnomer. In fact, a dog owner may be strictly liable for any injury caused by his or her dog.
