At Kenney & Conley, P.C. we say that we will fight for our clients all the way. Therefore, we take special pride in our aggressive and creative efforts on behalf of our clients in both the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. Here are some of the cases that we've handled on appeal, showing how we have helped shape the law on personal injury.
O'Brien v. Leahy Landscaping, Inc. 2007 WL 1202863 (2007)
Representing a mall patron, who was seriously injured in a fall caused by ice, we succeeded in reversing a Superior Court decision in favor of a snow removal contractor. The Appeals Court reaffirmed that passage of time can change the character of an accumulation of ice from natural to unnatural, and ruled we had presented sufficient evidence to raise the issue whether the ice on which our client fell constituted an actionable unnatural accumulation either by the passage of time or as a result of foreseeable pedestrian traffic, or both.
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fontneau, 70 Mass.App.Ct 553 (2007)
Representing a police officer who was injured in the line of duty while investigating a vandalism complaint, we succeeded in having the Appeals Court uphold a Superior Court decision in our favor concerning insurance coverage. The officer was injured on a dirt path adjacent to the insured premises. Although beyond the property line, the court ruled that the path was sufficiently connected to insured premises so as to receive liability coverage as an "insured location" as defined in the standard homeowner's insurance policy.
Manocchio v. Burns, 2002 WL 31375518 (2002)
Representing an injured construction worker, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in a case establishing that a new trial is required when a jury's deliberations are potentially infected by an improper communication from a defendant.
MacLean v. Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 870 (2001)
Representing a young woman injured in an ATV accident, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in the leading case establishing that ATVs are not motor vehicles subject to registration, and that ATV accidents will often be covered by homeowners insurance.
Howcroft v. City of Peabody, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 573 (2001)
Representing a police officer injured in the line of duty, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in a case establishing that public employees have a constitutional right to speak out on matters of public health and interest and cannot be retaliated against for their protected speech.
Comeau v. Casco Indemn. Co., Appeals Court No. 98-P-1048 (2000)
Representing a Massachusetts woman injured in Florida while using a motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire and insured in Maine, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in a case establishing that obtaining authority to issue insurance policies in Massachusetts subjects an insurer to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts.
Comeau v. Casco Indemn. Co., 2005 WL 1037459 (2005)
In subsequant appeal in the same case, we prevailed in the Appeals Court establishing that under New Hampshire law a person was occupying a vehicle for uninsured motorist purposes while she was outside of the vehicle engaged in acts relating to fueling the car -- in this case walking from the car to the cashier station to pay for gas.
Hopkins v. Medeiros, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 600 (2000)
Representing a police officer injured in the line of duty, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in a case establishing the existence of the rescue doctrine as a theory of liability and rejecting in Massachusetts the "fireman's rule," which in other states limits the ability of police officers and firefighters to recover for their injuries. In Massachusetts these public servants now have the same rights as other injured workers.
Barkan v. Massachusetts Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 2000 WL 1876858 (2000)
Representing a police officer injured in the line of duty, we prevailed in the Appeals Court in a case establishing that a wrongdoer's homeowners insurance must cover injuries suffered by a police officer while in the lawful pursuit of a suspect.
Brusard v. O'Toole, 429 Mass. 597 (1999)
Representing the interests of a child injured at birth, we prevailed in both the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court in the leading Massachusetts case on using medical treatises in medical malpractice trials.
Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gamache, 426 Mass. 93 (1997); 42 Mass. App. Ct. 194 (1997)
Representing a police officer injured in the line of duty, we prevailed in both the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court in the leading case establishing that insurance companies must pay for the harm arising from a wrongdoer's resistance to a lawful arrest, where the wrongdoer did not specifically intend to harm the victim.
This case was also the first case to establish that a losing insurance company must pay attorneys fees to its insured, if the company contests its duty to provide a defense.
Poskus v. Lombardo's of Randolph, Inc., 423 Mass. 637 (1996)
Representing a police officer injured in the line of duty, we persuaded the Supreme Judicial Court to declare for the first time that a vehicle owner who negligently allows a car to be stolen may be liable for the foreseeable harm caused by the thief's operation of the vehicle.
Roe v. Lawn, 418 Mass. 66 (1994); 34 Mass. App. Ct. 726 (1993)
Representing the interests of a handicapped child, we prevailed in both the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court in a case establishing that the insurance policy issued for a taxi or bus was required to pay damages for the molestation of a passenger by a driver.
Shepherd v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec., 399 Mass. 737 (1987)
Acting as volunteer lawyers in a pro bono case, we prevailed in the Supreme Judicial Court in the leading case establishing that alcoholism is a disease and that conduct caused by the disease would not be deemed willful for purposes of disqualification from unemployment benefits.
In these cases, and even in cases involving unsuccessful appeals, our attorneys have earned a reputation for tenacity and willingness to take the fight for their clients' rights to the Commonwealth's highest courts. We will give your case the same level of dedication. Contact us to set up an appointment for a free initial consultation to discuss your case and your options.