For example, ask the average person how much a Massachusetts hospital would be required to pay as compensation if one of its employees were found responsible for the accidental death of a patient, and you'll hear a wide range of answers: “Millions!” “Tens of millions!” “Hundreds of millions!!!” The fact is -- in Massachusetts, the absolute most a hospital can ever be held liable for -- regardless of the stupidity of the act or the extent of the damage, including death -- is twenty thousand dollars. That's it, and not a dime more according to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 231, § 85K the so-called “Charitable Immunity Statute”. Under this law, if a hospital employee -- let's say a pharmacist -- misfills a prescription, resulting in an accidental overdose and permanent brain damage, the very most the victim will ever stand to recover from the hospital is twenty grand. Oh... and by the way… that’s BEFORE attorney’s fees and costs are deducted from the victim's share. The same rule applies to children raped by Boy Scout Troop Leaders and predatory priests. Twenty grand. And that's not bad, when you consider that before 1971, Massachusetts lawmakers believed that absolutely nothing should be paid to victims.

Another mysterious creation of the Massachusetts Legislature is Massachusetts General Laws chapter 21 section 17C—otherwise known as the Massachusetts “Recreational Use Statute”. Under this law, anyone who makes land available to the public, and who does not charge a fee to use the land, is absolutely immune from liability to anyone injured while using the land for recreational purposes. This statute continues to be the darling of Massachusetts insurance companies when faced with personal injury lawsuits resulting from injuries suffered by children caused by defective playground equipment located on school playgrounds and public parks. Since neither schools nor public parks typically charge admission to enter or use public land for recreational purposes, anyone, including children, who suffers injuries or death on account of defective playground equipment, is barred from recovering from the cities and towns that own the dilapidated playground equipment. It should therefore come as no surprise that Massachusetts cities and town have some of most poorly maintained playgrounds in the country according to the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) who surveyed public playgrounds as part of a study. Ask yourself this: if there are no legal or economic risks associated with owning a dangerous playground, why on earth would a city or town invest in improving or maintaining its playgrounds? Here's a hint: they wouldn’t!

And what if someone were injured through the blatant negligence of an employee of a Massachusetts city or town? For example, what if a town worker was drinking on the job and accidentally dropped a paint can from the roof of the town library, leaving a child permanently paralyzed and in need of long term medical care? Well in that case, we turn to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 258, the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. According to this law, the Massachusetts Legislature believes that $100,000 is more than enough to even the score -- that is, before attorney’s fees and expenses are deducted, leaving the victim with a cool $66,000 under the best of circumstances. And that includes all past and future medical expenses.

It's hard to say why such laws remain on the books, but one thing is for certain -- laws that protect cities and towns and hospitals and churches from having to compensate those they injure or kill, virtually ensures that the very same kinds of accidents will occur again and again. Until such laws are revised, bad playgrounds will remain dangerous, bad public policies will remain in effect, and those who prey on children will remain on the job.

Here is a sad tale about some would-be Massachusetts homebuyers … and what can happen if you don’t have a lawyer to protect your rights at a real estate closing. A married couple negotiated the sale of a home in Marshfield and plunked down $15,275 as a deposit. They arranged a mortgage for the home. Everything looked great.

Then they got to the closing, and it all fell apart.

It turned out that in the fine print of the mortgage agreement, the lender had specified as a condition of the mortgage that the seller had to sign a “title affidavit.” This is an agreement that if there were ever any problem with the title of the property, the seller would be responsible for dealing with it.

But at the closing, the seller refused to sign. The seller’s attitude was that if he signed, he could potentially be on the hook for a lot of trouble down the road, yet he wasn’t getting anything in return for signing. So why do it?

[read the full article]