Hey, there! Log in / Register
Salem woman gets $460,000 settlement against MBTA for texting-trolley-driver injuries; had sought $8.6 million
By adamg on Tue, 06/11/2013 - 7:20am
The Salem News reports on the jury award for Samantha Mattei, injured in a May, 2009 collision blamed on trolley driver Aiden Quinn texting his girlfriend while operating the train.
The T argued that Mattei had some of her conditions, which her family says forced her to drop out of college and will require home care, before the crash.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Judgement not Settlement
I wonder why she didn't testify during the trial. I would think that having her in front of the jury would increase the judgement on sympathy alone.
overreached
according to trial testimony, this woman had a lot of health issues that pre-dated the trolley crash. sounds like the family thought they could take advantge of the T. I guarantee if they had settled before trial, they would have gotten much more than $460,000. oops!
Well, there goes the Slumerville Extension!
Looks like no green line to Somerville...when you have a bankrupt agency lose more money, things don't get done.
Despite what you delusional folks believe, you won't see a train rolling to Ball square before 2019.
The Green Line Extension is
The Green Line Extension is supposed to cost $1.3 billion. An extra $460k is no big deal.
Plus, the T has insurance (or maybe self-insurance) for this kind of thing. It doesn't come out of the general budget.
Self insurance?
Wouldn't "comes out of the general budget" be precisely the definition of "self insurance?"
Who exactly do you think pays for claims paid out by the T?
I'm almost positive that the T is self-insured
It was one of the main reasons they started adding cameras to buses and trains. They decided to go on the offensive against frivolous lawsuits.
I'm NOT lumping this one in with the other frivolous cases. I don't know enough about it to pass judgement. But some earlier ones were definitely legitimate scams.
Que?
They have insurance for incidents like this. Unfortunately for you, I don't think anyone sells idiot insurance.
Now, they still might not have a line to Ball Square before 2019, but that's a completely different kind of incompetence.
This
Not to mention, the funds are coming from the state and feds. Not the MBTA.
Happens more than you think
I've been apart of not one, not two.. but THREE liable lawsuits against the T. Why three? Because unlike 99% of the passengers who ride the T and scurry away when something like this happens. I hand my business card to the driver or inspector so I can be a witness. I've done this three times, and all three times the lawsuit was thrown out solely on my testimony. I do it because I don't believe in the fleecing of a public agency because you can.
Two out of the three never made it to trial. The one that did, I went to trial and I think after the prosecution saw I actually showed up and was willing to provide statements on what really happened, they were dropped.
The T is a sitting duck for frivolous lawsuits. Why? because the prosecution see's the T has a cash cow. Lawsuits are expensive, and in many cases it is just easier and cheaper for the T to settle out of court. (and people wonder why the T is bleeding money..) And many lawyers know this and just see dollar signs (typical for "personal injury" lawyers).
This is another reason why on
This is another reason why on board and dashboard cameras should be standard equipment on all MBTA vehicles. Solve & deter crimes,keep staff on the up & up, and prevent costly insurance fraud.
My gut instinct is that the jury got this wrong
A diagnosis of anxiety and depression (her "pre-existing conditions", according to the T) doesn't mean you will never work again, which sounds like what this young woman might be up against now. I assume the traumatic brain injury was documented, and there's a big difference between a traumatic brain injury necessitating a home health aid and anxiety and depression that can often be treated with therapy or Zoloft. As far as the somewhat vague pre-existing "somatoform disorder", I don't think that would approach the severity of a traumatic brain injury caused by obvious negligence on the part of the driver (and on the part of the T for hiring him given his poor driving record). If the jury thought the woman was uninjured in the crash, why give her anything? And admitting that she was injured by the T's negligence, why such a small amount? I think they got tricked by the T's lawyers.