Personal injury cases are complex at every stage. If you’ve been hurt in an accident that you believe was caused by someone else’s negligence, we are here to help. Our Massachusetts injury attorneys understand the both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law that are critical to every case, and we will make sure that absolutely nothing is overlooked.
In a recent case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court concluded that “garden variety oversight” by defense lawyers was not sufficient grounds to permit more time to file an appeal. The plaintiff in the case was hurt while working as he maneuvered a pallet from a truck onto a loading dock over a dock plate. The incident led to the man needing hip surgery and he was not able to go back to work. The man sued alleging that the defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the dock plate, thereby causing the accident and resulting injuries. The plaintiff stated that he was told by a coworker that there had been an issue with the dock place for “some time.” At the end of the trial, the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendants filed a motion, within the proper time frame, requesting a new trial or a remittitur. On February 12, 2018, the trial court judge denied the defendant’s motion and the 30 day clock for filing an appeal began to run. The defendants, however, failed to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day time frame. Rather, approximately 8 days after the 30-day deadline, they filed a motion to extend the time to file notice of appeal. The trial court granted the motion. On April 2, 2018, an estimated 49 days after their post-trial motion was denied, the defendants filed an appeal. In response, the plaintiff filed a cross appeal, challenging the trial court’s judge’s decision to permit the defendants to file their late appeal.