Parker | Scheer LLP Blog

What if Tobey, the Governor's Dog, and Fritz, the Boston Police Dog, Each Bit Someone's Nose Off? How Would Their Victims Fare?

In a follow-up to yesterday's post about the Mattapan, Massachusetts woman who was attacked by "Fritz" the off-duty, Boston police dog, we now read that Governor Deval Patrick's dog, Tobey, may have injured a woman who attended a Town Meeting this week. What's interesting about these two incidents is the way the two victims would be compensated under existing Massachusetts law, had - hypothetically - both dogs inflicted the very same injuries.

In the case of the female Mattapan victim, regardless of the extent of her injuries, the very most she would likely recover against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (as the owner of the dog) is $100,000.00. This would be the maximum recovery, even if the injuries included massive facial disfigurement or death. Massachusetts lawmakers simply do not believe that any injury caused by the negligence of its employees (or its dogs) is deserving of any more than one hundred grand.

Now consider the victim of Governor Patrick's dog, Tobey. While it appears that the injuries inflicted by Tobey were only minor, since Tobey is owned by Governor Patrick, and not by the Commonwealth, the Governor does not enjoy the same protections as those provided to the Commonwealth. Simply put - if both Fritz and Tobey each bit a person's nose off, Tobey's victim might receive hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in compensation, while Fritz's victim would never receive a dime over one hundred thousand dollars.

The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G.L. c. 258 section 2) creates two classes of tortfeasor for the purpose of compensating victims: The citizen tortfeasor (which includes individuals and corporations) and the governmental torfeasor. The problem with such a system is obvious: governmental tortfeasors have no real economic incentive to avoid acts of negligence; as the worst case scenarios involve a penalty that the State can easily afford to pay. If a Boston police officer runs a red light while operating his cruiser and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk - the maximum recovery to which the family of the victim is legally entitled is just one hundred grand - that's before attorney's fees, case expenses, and unpaid medical costs. Not a penny more.

I hate when people say it, but I have to agree - laws only change when lawmakers suffer the tragedies and inequities that their constituents face every day. Only then will the relic that is Chapter 258 be brought in line with 21st century medical costs, wage losses, and other economic damages that victims of governmental negligence presently face as victims.

Eric J. Parker

Boston Police Dog Attacks Pedestrian

The "off duty" Boston police dog that attacked a Mattapan woman today may just be the luckiest dog around. Under Massachusetts law, the owner or "keeper" of a dog that causes injury to a person is "strictly liable" to the victim for the damages inflicted. In plain words - if you own a dog, and your dog bites someone, the only question to be answered is: how much is the victim entitled to recover. There is no limit to the amount of the recovery the victim may be awarded by a Massachusetts jury - unless of course, the dog happens to be owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258 Section 2, the absolute most that a victim may recover from the Commonwealth for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the Commonwealth (or-in this case, its dog) is one hundred thousand dollars - regardless of the extent of the injuries inflicted, including wrongful death. The $100,000 limit, a figure established by Massachusetts law-makers long ago, would not begin to compensate a person who suffers debilitating injuries as a result of a dog attack. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts legislature has shown no interest in updating this antiquated law. In more "civilized" States, such as New York, the liability of a governmental body (such as a city or town) is treated no differently than an individual charged with the very same negligence. Had the victim of the Mattapan attack been the owner of a dog who attacked a Massachusetts police officer (an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) the owner of the dog would face unlimited liability for the injuries suffered by that police officer. The $100,000 cap simply would not apply. This law is outdated, unfair to victims, and should be updated.  

The Auto Insurance You Thought You Purchased - But Didn't

               When an individual is seriously injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident, the general practice is to first look to the insurance coverage available under the automobile insurance policy covering the party responsible for the accident. This coverage is called “Bodily Injury Coverage” and must be purchased before a car, truck or motorcycle can be legally registered in Massachusetts.  Bodily Injury Coverage is the insurance coverage that would be available to you or your household members in the event of a serious accident. The minimum amount of Bodily Injury Coverage required to legally put a car on the road in Massachusetts is currently just $20,000. This means that if a negligent driver causes serious injury or death to you or a member of your household, the most you could recover from that driver’s insurance company would be $20,000. While in very rare instances the personal assets of the negligent driver may supplement this coverage, in the overwhelming percentage of motor vehicle-related injury claims, Bodily Injury Coverage is the only source of financial recovery available to the victim.

            There are however two other “parts” of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy that provide additional coverage to you and your household members in the event they suffer serious injury or death as a result of an UNDER-insured or UN-insured motor vehicle operator. The problem is most victims of motor vehicle negligence don’t realize that they lack this coverage until after the accident takes place. 

            In recent months, Parker Scheer has been retained by a growing number of clients seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents where no under-insured or un-insured coverage was available to the victims. Nearly all of these drivers were under the false impression that they had purchased “the maximum insurance” at the time of the accident. It was not until we met with these victims, following their accidents, that we had the unpleasant duty to inform them that what they had purchased was actually the minimum coverage needed to register their vehicles – that there was no additional coverage available to them.

            We believe that the current economic downturn has created a very dangerous climate for Massachusetts drivers. It is our belief that current conditions have lead a growing number of Massachusetts drivers to decrease their motor vehicle insurance coverage limits as a means of reducing general household expenses; a dangerous mistake with potentially catastrophic consequences for both those who cause injuries to others as well as to those who suffer serious injuries or fatalities.

            What is perhaps most frustrating of all is just how little it costs per month to increase your under-insured and un-insured motorist coverage limits to the maximum coverage your auto insurance company is legally required to sell you. That answer can be easily obtained through a single telephone call to your automobile insurance company.           

            Don’t wait for a serious accident to occur before you take this important step. Call your automobile insurance company today and learn what it costs to increase your un-insured (Part 3) and under-insured (Part 12) coverage limits to $250,000 per person ($500,000 per accident) levels. Increasing Part 3 and Part 12 coverages to these recommended limits may require you to increase your Part 5 (Optional Bodily Injury to Others) coverage to equal limits, but the increased cost is greatly outweighed by the potential future benefits.

            If you have any questions about any of the recommendations contained in this advisory, do not hesitate to call us directly. There is absolutely no charge to discuss this important issue with one of our experienced trial attorneys. Or telephone your automobile insurance company or agent to learn more about your options and costs.

            Our hope is that neither you nor any member of your household ever needs the insurance coverage described in this letter. But should events occur which would make such coverage available to you or a family member, we hope you never find yourself without it.