“Tell Them You Mean Business”

Liability for Massachusetts Roadway Defects Resulting in Injury, Death

An airborne iron manhole cover killed a beloved 35-year-old elementary school art teacher in Massachusetts in February 2016, prompting a massive Department of Transportation inspection of 900 grates and covers on Boston-area highways.

Officials reported they had found no major issues after examining the manholes, electrical panel and sewage drainage systems. Massachusetts State Police are still investigating how the 200-pound cover launched into the air and struck the teacher’s windshield as she neared the edge of the Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. Tunnel.

This stunning fatality raised troubling questions about motorists’ safety in Boston and surrounding areas.

At The Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone, our auto accident lawyers know that while human error causes the majority of car crashes in the U.S., the existence of defective roads or dangerous engineering or lack of maintenance should not be overlooked.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has strong protections for local government agencies from defective streets.

M.G.L. Ch. 81, Section 18 allows the state to be held liable for any defects in highways – so long as the injuries were caused by defects within the limits of the constructed traveled roadway. There are some exceptions, though, including:

  • Injuries caused by lack of railing in or upon the state highway;
  • Injury sustained on the sidewalk of a state highway;
  • Injury during construction, reconstruction or repair of a highway.

The amount that may be recovered should not exceed one-fifth of one-percent of the valuation of the town in which the injury was received – nor can it exceed $4,000.

Obviously, that doesn’t count for much if you have suffered a serious injury.

Then there is M.G.L. Ch. 84, Section 15, which limits the recovery of damages for any person injured by a defective roadway or sidewalk to $5,000. What’s more, Section 18 of that same chapter requires the local government be put on notice within 30 days of the accident, or else claimant may not be able to recover at all.

Now, one could certainly argue the merits of insulating a government agency from responsibility for the condition of its streets and sidewalks. Unfortunately, that is the current status of the law.

Still, it is important to speak with a personal injury lawyer because there could be some cases in which a defective roadway may have been privately-owned or privately-maintained. In these cases, there may be grounds to file a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against one of these entities.

Additionally, it is possible that another driver may share some level of responsibility - even if a roadway defect were responsible for part of the accident. This is another avenue victim(s) might pursue in order to recover damages.

It’s not clear whether that would apply in the case of the teacher who was killed. According to officials, inspectors looked over grates and covers on I-93 from Boston to Somerville, and also inside the tunnels of the metro highway system. They discovered no obvious issues that might have signaled a problem.

The last time that particular manhole was inspected was two years ago, and an inspection report indicated the cover rated “very good.”

If you have suffered an injury in a Boston car accident, contact our offices today.

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone's G+ Profile

Google Self-Driving Car Causes California Collision

Valentine’s Day accident raises important legal questions

On February 14th, a Google self-driving car was involved in an accident while in fully autonomous mode – a crash that Google admits was at least partially its software’s fault.

The accident happened when the self-driving Lexus was blocked by sandbags placed around a storm drain while attempting to make a right turn. Needing to re-enter the center lane, the Lexus stopped and let several cars pass, then moved to go around the sandbags and hit the side of an approaching bus.

According to Google’s statements, the self-driving car’s software sensed the approaching bus, but predicted that the bus would slow or stop. The test driver in the autonomous car also believed that the bus would yield to the Lexus and did not take manual control of the vehicle.

Google acknowledged partial responsibility for the accident, stating that if their car hadn’t moved, the collision would not have happened. The company will revise its self-driving software to expect buses and other large vehicles to drive more aggressively.

No one was hurt in the accident, but the autonomous vehicle suffered body damage to the left front fender, left front wheel and driver’s side sensor.

Although this was not the first accident involving one of Google’s self-driving cars, it was the first for which Google has taken partial responsibility. In each of the previous collisions involving self-driving cars, Google – as well as the California DMV – has blamed the other vehicle involved.

Google’s records indicate that while this was the first instance of an autonomous car actually causing a collision, it wasn’t the first time the software made such an error. In at least 13 previous instances, the test driver had to take manual control of the car to avoid an accident – and according to Google’s simulations, the self-driving car would have been at fault for 10 of those accidents.

It’s worth noting that most of those incidents were early in the self-driving car program, and Google intends to further refine the software to make the cars safer going forward. However, accidents may also rise as Google introduces the cars to busier roads and more challenging driving conditions.

Regardless, it’s only a matter of time before another accident happens involving an autonomous vehicle.

Legal implications of a self-driving vehicle crash

Because regulations for autonomous regulations are still being worked on, it’s unclear exactly how liability will work in the event that a self-driving car causes an accident that injures or kills a person. However, an experienced attorney knows there are signs that these cases may not differ too much from cases involving human drivers.

Statements from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicate that the self-driving system itself, rather than any occupant of the vehicle, will be considered a “driver” under federal law. If the self-driving system were to cause an accident, then the car – and thus Google – could be held liable for any damages caused.

In California, where the recent accident took place, regulations require autonomous vehicles to have manual controls and a human operator ready to take control of the car to avoid an accident. Under those laws, the human driver could in principle be found negligent for not taking control of the vehicle to avoid a collision – which, again, is exactly what happened in the February 14th accident.

Another possibility is that injuries caused by a self-driving vehicle could be covered under product liability law. Google’s stated goal is to make its autonomous cars safer than human-operated vehicles, but the design has a long way to go before that becomes a reality. If Google’s product turns out to be less safe than intended, the company could be held liable for any damage it causes.

As the NHTSA moves toward establishing regulations for self-driving cars at the federal level, we’ll know more about how liability for accidents involving autonomous vehicles will be handled. It’s clear, however, that Google’s self-driving cars – and Google as a company – have the same legal responsibility to keep the road safe as human motorists, and will be held accountable if that responsibility is not met.