Home / Accident attorney / Liability to Protect Against Foreseeable Car Accidents: New Case Law

Liability to Protect Against Foreseeable Car Accidents: New Case Law

Recently, Massachusetts's appeal raised the issue of responsibility
a retail store that protects the foreseeable
car accidents its property.

Dubuque v. Cumberland Farms, dealt with the terrible 2010 accident where the victim suffered from speeding
while a sports vehicle is walking in the comfort of Cumberland Farms
store. The victim died immediately. The car was driving at a high speed
at the intersection and fell through the window facade.
The test gave a lot of evidence that shows the entrance
the car park in the store was the tip, which made it harder
navigate at high speed.

The victim's husband, the executor of his country, filed a lawsuit
Cumberland farms
neglect and gross negligence. The husband claimed that Cumberland Farms was
announces the risks that customers are exposed to. Husband
claimed that Cumberland Farms could have prevented the victim
death by installing palettes or other protection options as well
installing obstacles at the top of the parking lot.

In defense of Cumberland Farms, he argued that it should not be answered
because there have been no car strikes in the past
save in the past. In addition, the defendant claimed that the accident was
is not foreseeable, and it was random and that no reasonable measure would be
have prevented the accident because it involves such a large vehicle on the way
at such a high speed.

The jury found that Cumberland Farms had been neglected and granted to the applicant
$ 32 million in substitute damages. The right to investigate reduced these damages
on the basis of a request made by the defendant and stated that they were disproportionate
high compared to the evidence. The judge stated that the damage was
product to some degree of passion, bias or prejudices. Judge
ordered a new trial for damages, unless the applicant accepted it
$ 20 million in damages, accepted by the applicant. Both parties

The Board of Appeal considered Cumberland Farms' claim that
evidence of previous car accidents which were approved during the trial
the accidents must be substantially similar to the accident in question.
The Court held that argument. "Absolute identity of the conditions
did not need it, and the reasons for unattended carcases need
is not the same, "the court said." That's enough
the evidence showed that Cumberland Farms was aware of the unmanageable risk
car strikes in their stores; the evidence was relevant and foreseeable
and negligence. "The trial judge did not have to investigate
individual driver behavior and the causes of each accident before allowing
judges hear about these accidents, the court noted. rather
"What was relevant was whether Cumberland Farms was aware of it
the risk of uncontrolled vehicles that collide and threaten the front of their belongings
customers and employees. The judge did not abuse his discretion when he was
decided that unmanaged car lenses, not the exact cause
car strikes, were relevant at the jury's discretion
whether the risk is foreseeable and whether Cumberland Farms was aware of it
of this risk. "

The defendant then claimed that an internal report (which
discussed, among other things, from various auto accidents
defendant's property) as evidence was extremely damaging
which is why the number of accidents was 485, which was a great deal
greater than the number of accidents occurring in other negligence.
Nor does the Court agree: "The facts spoke for themselves – Cumberland
The farm had experienced an average of one car per week for a sustained one
time in different stores. Cumberland Farms was aware of these
and took action to protect property, as in the case of a sign
Chicopee store. The evidence was not presented in a way that your shadow
trial. "

Next, the defendant claimed that the accident was sporadic and unforeseen
legally, referring to the driver staining
in the adjacent public way and drove "speeds such as motorways".
Cumberland Farms claimed that because the accident was unforeseeable, it was
there was no obligation because the risks of the damage were not the types that knew or reasonably
should have been known, and not what kind of things might be
reasonable preventative measures.

Once again the Court ruled that the defendant was to confirm the judgment.
"Cumberland Farms had experienced numerous car strikes in their stores,
including uncontrolled vehicles that accidentally go to the warehouse
property at high speeds. It was also a consideration that the tip of the entrance
caused special dangers, and in fact the vehicles had come to Chicopee
stores the property at dangerously high speeds through the apex entrance, "
the court ruled. Finally, the applicant provided sufficient evidence
to support the finding that Cumberland Farms could have used a reasonable amount of work
preventive measures to remedy these risks. That is why we can not
legally decides that no sensible view of evidence would be
require predictability. "

If you have any questions about motor vehicle accidents, negligence,
violation of personal injury, right to compensation, intentional damages, damages or other legitimate
incidents, thank you
contact our offices . You can organize a free consultation with an experienced professional
today. Call 978-225-9030 during working hours or fill in the contact form
online and one of us
experienced personal injury lawyer will come back to you.

About admin

Check Also

Beware of the Dog – Horse – Cow, or any animal!

Henkilövahingot Väitteet johtuvat usein eläinten aiheuttamista loukkaantumisista, kun voidaan osoittaa, että olennon omistaja tai pitäjä …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *