A police officer injured on duty can make a valuable claim against a negligent third party, even when the current injury involves a body part injured or operated on in the past or has been chronically problematic.  It is not unusual for an officer to re-injure a back, shoulder, knee, wrist, or ankle during an incident on duty.  Many officers have dealt with lower back pain and received treatment off and on over the years, only to have it aggravated in a new cruiser collision or in a struggle with a suspect.   All of these injured officers have valuable claims which they can make against the wrongdoer from the new incident.  These claims compensate the injured officer for losses which include lost overtime and detail pay, pain and suffering, and scarring.


We have successfully represented officers with prior injuries, including: an officer who required surgery for a knee after chasing a suspect through a mall, even though the officer suffered prior knee injuries; an officer who injured his back in a cruiser accident, even though he was then under the care of a neurosurgeon for his lower back; an officer who ruptured an Achilles tendon chasing a suspect, when the officer already suffered from a strained Achilles tendon; and an officer who developed the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, which had been dormant prior to his fall on a wet slippery floor.


The law protecting citizens in Massachusetts which provides for the compensation of conditions which are aggravated does not differentiate between employment categories.  The law applies with equal vigor to police officers injured on duty, as it would to any other employee injured at work.  Ever since the seminal case of Wallace v. Ludwig 292 Mass 251 (1935), the law in Massachusetts has been that a negligent actor is liable for the aggravation of pre-existing conditions, regardless of how bad the condition was in the past or was at the time of the new incident.  In Massachusetts, it is well established the Defendant is liable for all the damages sustained by an injured officer even if that officer was “more susceptible to the particular form of injury” and even if the injuries would have been less severe if the trauma was inflicted on some other person.  Webber v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 210 Mass. 432, 442 (1912).


Many lawyers are troubled by the pre-existing condition.  We are not.  If anything, it helps us prove how the recent trauma resulted in the current injured condition.


It is critical to a successful case that the injured officer:

• inform medical providers, such as emergency room and primary care physicians, about the prior condition;
• describe how the condition is different now than it was before the new injury. For example:  the degree of the pain, how long it lasts, where it is located, how often it appears, the last time it bothered the officer prior to the new incident, etc.; and
• consult with us early on (We work on a contingent fee basis. This means the injured officer pays for our legal services and expenses at the end of the case and pays nothing in the off chance we are unable to collect money on their claim).

Erica DiMaio suddenly veers over double yellow lines on Main Street. Three eyewitnesses watch in horror as Ms. DiMaio violently crashes head on into a police cruiser operated by Officer Avery.


The Fire Department is already on scene by the time Officer Avery comes to. He wakes up to the sounds of firefighters using a reciprocating saw to detach the mangled driver door from the cruiser. Freed from the cruiser, Officer Avery is taken by helicopter to the hospital where he would remain for over two weeks.


Officer Avery’s injuries were numerous: concussion, fractured left arm and leg, five fractured ribs, and multiple lacerations. The left arm fracture required three procedures, including a surgery to implant permanent hardware. His road to recovery included extensive therapy. Despite continuing symptoms in his arms and legs, Officer Avery worked diligently with his therapists to regain strength and motion. Just shy of nine months after the crash, Officer Avery was cleared for a return to work. Officer Avery surprised everyone. He pushed his doctors to clear his return long before many thought he would be medically able. Officer Avery’s doctors and therapists documented his dedicated efforts towards his own recovery as well as his desire to return to work.

We met Officer Avery while he was still in the hospital. He expressed his good fortune to have survived this horrendous crash. However, he stressed about how he would support his family. As a ‘special’ officer, Officer Avery works part time for his municipality. Not only was he too injured to work as a police officer, he could not resume his regular occupation.

We decided to feature Officer Avery’s case not just for the monetary result, but also to inform special, reserve and part time officers of certain injury-on-duty benefits, which may be available to them. Like many police officers and firefighters working on a ‘special’, reserve or part time designation, Officer Avery relied on a second, regular occupation to support his family.

Many special officers and part time officers are unaware that Massachusetts law provides protection for special officers like Mr. Avery who are unable to work their regular occupation because of an injury-on-duty. In most circumstances, M.G.L. Chapter 32 §85H affords compensation equivalent to the average weekly pay of a first-year public safety officer while the officer is unable to work their regular occupation because of the injured-on-duty. We have found several municipalities to be unaware of this provision. This municipality was no exception.

We worked with Officer Avery’s municipality to ensure these benefits were made available to Officer Avery for the entire period he was unable to work his regular occupation. These injury-on-duty benefits helped Officer Avery survive financially while he was out of work rehabbing from his injuries. As for Officer Avery’s injury claim against Ms. DiMaio, we secured a ‘policy limit’ settlement with her insurance company for $500,000 after holding steadfast in our refusal to accept anything less. And we did all this without ever filing a lawsuit.

If you are a reserve, special or part time officer injured-on-duty and cannot return to your regular occupation, like Officer Avery, you too may be able to make a claim for full and fair compensation and receive full injury-on-duty wage benefits while you recover from your injuries.

– Jared N. Ballin, Esq. & Steven M. Ballin, Esq.

A contractor parks two large utility trucks back to back while setting up for an ongoing project on Main Street at an intersection with Booth Street.  There is heavy traffic in this area with vehicles approaching the work site from multiple directions.  Many of the vehicles pass alongside the two trucks and crew, while others come out of Booth Street entering the intersection from the north and south on either side of Main Street.  The contractor hires Officer Jeffrey to work this detail.  No other detail officers were hired.

Later that morning, two drivers approach the southbound lane of travel on Booth Street from different directions: Mr. Green approaches from the west (green car) on Main Street and Mr. Reach approaches from the north (red car) on Booth Street.  Facing west alongside the first truck, Officer Jeffrey directs vehicles past the trucks on Main Street.  Mr. Reach then crashes into Mr. Green’s vehicle as it passes by Officer Jeffrey.  Reach’s car then veers into Officer Jeffrey.  Officer Jeffrey is pinned against the contractor’s truck and killed.  Officer Jeffrey never saw Reach’s car approaching across the intersection from Booth Street.

The State Police investigation focused on Mr. Reach.  He was charged with and pled guilty to vehicular homicide.  There was, however, no investigation made regarding the contractor’s traffic control plan.  Nevertheless, I believed that the contractor blocked the southbound lane on Booth Street without planning for or warning traffic.  Therefore, I filed a lawsuit not only against Mr. Reach, but also against the contractor.

Photographs released after Mr. Reach’s criminal case was over confirmed that one of the contractor’s trucks blocked the entire southbound lane on Booth Street.  And after dozens of depositions, I discovered that besides Officer Jeffrey, the sole officer hired for the detail, the only traffic control devices utilized by the contractor were two ‘work ahead’ signs on either side of the work site on Main Street and a few cones alongside the two trucks.  As often happens to officers hired on details, Officer Jeffrey was left to cope with the confusion, congestion, and traffic as best he could in this busy, four-way intersection.

I have been very fortunate to have traveled abroad on a number of occasions.  I always make a point to chat up the locals when I travel and learn more about their country and lives.  For example, on the same days I saw beautiful vineyards or pristine beaches and blue water, I learned from locals how hard it is to get good healthcare, potable drinking water, a decent job, an education, the rampant poverty, the crime and other social problems hidden beyond the view of the typical tourist.  As a country we may not be perfect, but we are without question the best country to live in and raise a family, which is something we should all give thanks for.

​I have been privileged to represent and have gotten to know so many police officers across the Commonwealth.  They epitomize everything I would want in a police officer protecting my family and me:  professional, dedicated, and truly caring about their community.  Every day at work I read actual police reports which reflect their brave, unselfish and professional approach to protecting us while preserving the rights of those they confront.  We rarely read about these incidents because they don’t seem to be newsworthy.  It pains me to see the recent and increasing violent attacks on police across this country. It is a tragedy. What is happening now is unacceptable.  This cannot continue and become a norm.  We all must work to reverse this.

When we hear a report of an incident involving alleged misconduct by the police, we need to remind ourselves and others to be patient.  We must wait until all the facts are in.  We need to be reminded the officer involved is a witness.  The officer typically is not free to tell their side of the story until the appropriate time as the justice system and any associated investigation run their courses. We must be mindful there are always two sides to a story.  Our police daily do good deeds and good work done so consistently that it is taken for granted and goes unmentioned.  It would be great if the media would spend more time reporting on this good work to prevent a distorted view of our dedicated police.

We all have a stake in supporting our police and reversing the dangerous trend of attacking those who bravely and unselfishly protect us day in and day out.  On this Thanksgiving, we can start saying “thank you for your service” the next time we see a police officer on the street or at a local store.  I’ll bet you will find, like I have, the officer will react with surprise or profound appreciation.  The reaction you will get will likely be heartwarming.  The officer’s reaction may also give you a glimpse of the daily stress these officers live under, as a result of the threat of violence against them and the distorted image of police being portrayed at times by some in the media and some leaders.

In the words of Bruce Springsteen, let’s all remember “We take care of our own.”  On this Thanksgiving holiday, let’s give thanks for living in the best country in the world and let each one of us start taking positive steps to support and show appreciation for our local police.

Happy Thanksgiving!

– Steven Ballin, Esq.

Mr. Driver travels down a road he knows very well on a clear, Fall day.  He readies himself to turn left into a gas station. Sitting in the front passenger seat is his wife who sees a motorcyclist approaching from the opposite direction. She yells to watch out. Mr. Driver does not yield the right of way to the motorcycle. Instead, he turns left toward the gas station and cuts off the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist crashes into the side of Mr. Driver’s car, ejects from his seat, hits the car and lands in the roadway. The motorcyclist is our client, Arthur Vee.

Arthur sustained a fractured right arm and fractured right lower leg.  He had surgeries where plates and screws were implanted to repair his fractures. After filing a lawsuit against Mr. Driver, we discovered he had a $1,000,000 umbrella insurance in addition to his $250,000 auto insurance policy. We quickly deposed all witnesses, including an eyewitness, who testified Mr. Driver cut off our client. We also deposed Mr. Driver, who, as it turns out, is a licensed optometrist. Nevertheless, Mr. Driver claimed during his deposition that he did not see the motorcycle until it was too late, even though his wife yelled to him to watch out for the motorcycle.

After months of inpatient and outpatient care, Arthur was able to return to work as a machinist, albeit in a limited capacity. Nearly a year and a half after the crash, Arthur was just starting to enjoy his life again when his right leg gave out while walking with his cane in an icy parking lot. His right upper leg fractured in the fall. He needed yet another surgery with more hardware. We argued this new fracture was caused by the crash because Arthur’s leg was still weak. However, Mr. Driver’s insurance company and defense lawyer refused to accept responsibility for the new fracture. We then met with Arthur’s surgeon who pointed out that Arthur’s right upper leg bone appeared fine in X-rays right after the crash; however, it appeared weak in X-rays taken before the fall in the parking lot. This weakness resulted from not being able to use his right leg after the crash during non-weight-bearing rehabilitation. Also, the area of weakness was in the exact location that was affected by the low energy fall in the parking lot. After careful review of Arthur’s X-rays before and after the fall in the parking lot, Arthur’s surgeon attributed all of the injuries, including those from the fall, to the original crash with Mr. Driver.

With the compelling deposition testimony and strong opinion of Arthur’s surgeon, we were able to reach a settlement for $1,000,000 at mediation, with $250,000 coming from Mr. Driver’s auto insurance and the remaining $750,000 coming from his umbrella policy.

​A local police officer, Gerald Seine, was off duty and riding his own motorcycle ahead of his close friend Arthur at the time of the crash. Knowing the results we have obtained for injured officers, Officer Seine referred Arthur to us. We were glad to represent Arthur and are always available to assist the friends and family of police officers.

– Steven Ballin, Esq and Jared Ballin, Esq.

A 55 year old worker suffered second and third degree burns to his foot at work while cleaning heavy equipment with a high pressure steam power washer.  His employer had no workers compensation insurance at the time; the policy having been cancelled for non-payment of premiums months before.  The employee hired us after months of being strung along by his employer with promises to pay his wages and medical expenses.  He had suffered financially long enough.  He had no money coming in and had bills to pay.  I sued the employer under a state law which holds an employer liable for tort damages when there is no available workers compensation coverage for an injured employee.  Tort damages means more than traditional workers compensation benefits.  For a new workers compensation claim these benefits typically include payment of medical expenses and 60% of the lost wages up to a state maximum rate.  In contrast, tort damages includes the medical bills, 100% of the lost wages, pain, suffering and diminished enjoyment of life, as well as future expected damages.  All that the injured employee needs to prove under this state law is that he sustained an injury while acting in the scope of his employment.  It does not matter whose fault the injury was or that the employee may have carelessly injured himself.

After being sued, the employer cut a deal with its insurer and obtained a new workers compensation policy.  The insurance company agreed to retroactively cover the workers compensation benefits of the injured employee.  With this retroactive coverage the employer counted on us dropping the lawsuit.  Prevailing law at the time was that an injured employee could not have both workers compensation benefits and a tort suit against the employer.  Once workers compensation benefits are received, the employee is treated as making an election forgoing the right to sue the employer.  However, I refused to drop the lawsuit and argued this election was inapplicable to this case.  I argued to the court there are uninsured, injured employees out there who are either unaware of their rights or do not have the courage to bring a lawsuit themselves.  We needed the Court to make a stand.  If the Court dismissed our lawsuit, there would be no deterrent to employers who choose to let their policies lapse leaving their employees unprotected, only to then get back dated coverage, if, and when, an injured employee ever files a lawsuit.  The Court agreed and denied the employer’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit.  We then filed a motion, which the Court granted, to freeze $350,000.00 of the employer’s assets.

After mediation, the employer agreed to pay $500,000 to the injured employee.  The workers compensation insurer who made the retroactive payment agreed to take no lien against this recovery and agreed to continue to pay for all future medical expenses.

– Steven M. Ballin, Esq.

A contractor is doing construction work in a right turn lane at a busy intersection. The contractor decides to close off the right turn lane using some cones. Debbie Driver approaches the intersection. She intends on using the right turn lane, as she does every day on her way home from work. There are no advance warning signs about the closed right turn up ahead. There is no one to direct Ms. Driver past the closed right turn and through the intersection. The only detail officer hired by the contractor is farther up the road directing traffic away from the workers and heavy machinery.

Surprised by the closed right turn, Ms. Driver takes a sharp right turn around a traffic island. The turn is too severe an angle. Ms. Driver’s tires run up along a median. She veers off the median and loses control of her car. She hits the officer. The officer suffers injuries to his knees, back and head. The officer was not able to return to work. Despite several surgeries, he has constant knee pain and the symptoms from his head injury continue to persist.

The contractor blames Ms. Driver, telling the State Police that other drivers made the sharp right turn all day without incident. The State Police cite Ms. Driver. It makes no investigation into the contractor’s temporary traffic control plan, or lack thereof.

We filed a lawsuit against the contractor based on the lack of temporary traffic control planning for the closed right turn: In particular, the failure to provide advance warning and the failure to hire an appropriate amount of officers to direct traffic at this busy intersection. The contractor’s crew admitted during depositions that the right turn had just been closed and that Ms. Driver was actually the first one to attempt the sharp right turn. The crew also testified how Ms. Driver looked confused and panicked as she made the sharp right turn. The contractor admitted it was required to provide advance warning signs about the road closure but that it had failed to do so. It also admitted that it could have hired more police officers to direct traffic.

While the lawsuit also included Ms. Driver, it was the contractor that set the stage for the crash. It was the contractor, not Ms. Driver, which failed to prepare a temporary traffic control plan for the road closure. Prior to trial during a mediation the case settled for $1.95 million. The contractor finally took responsibility for the crash.

Each year 40,000 people are injured or killed in roadway work zones. Construction companies needlessly put us all in increased danger of being injured or killed in a crash when they do not properly plan out the work zone. Federal and State regulations require companies that work on our roads to prepare temporary traffic control plans; however, there is frequently no planning beyond putting out a few cones alongside the work vehicle.

Officers injured on or off duty should consult with us early on, so we can determine whether you have a viable case and for you to learn of your rights.
​
– Steven M. Ballin, Esq.

We will all be glad to forget the record snow falls this past winter when the last mound of snow and ice on our properties has melted away exposing green grass and clear sidewalks.  However, let’s not forget that just because there were record snowfalls, property owners are not excused from their legal responsibility to visitors of their property.  A property owner has “a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk.”  Clearly record snow falls will factor into whether a person acted reasonable in all of the circumstances.

In this case a visitor to a home was walking at the top of the driveway  where people were expected to walk towards the side entrance to the home.  This became the primary entrance, as the front door in the front yard was blocked off by snow.  The ice condition at the top of the driveway was treacherous, as water which came from melting snow on the roof was directed into this area by a down spout, where the water collected and froze, layer by layer, day by day.  We refer to this as “meltwater ice.”  It is virtually impossible to get any traction to keep your footing on “meltwater ice.”  Reasonable care would require a homeowner to either remove this ice, sand and salt the area, apply ice melt and if feasible,  redirect the down spout to an area where people are not expected to walk, such as behind the bushes or into the side yard.

This visitor walked on this treacherous ice hidden beneath newly falling snow.  The visitor went flying in the air sustaining a comminuted fracture of the leg which required a rod being permanently hammered into his leg to give it support.  It was so slippery that responding EMT’s  had difficulty getting to and removing the visitor as he lay on the frozen ground.  One look at the down spout discharging meltwater into this area told the story.  The homeowner obviously knew treacherous ice accumulated there, avoided it and took no steps to make the area safe for visitors.  We resolved this case short of trial for $190,000 for our client with the homeowner’s insurance company.

You may not be able to remove all of the ice on your property but you need to take reasonable care in all the circumstances to provide a safe path where visitors are expected to walk.  Identify the areas where your downspouts create meltwater ice.  If possible, spend the money needed to redirect the down spouts.  In any event, make sure to at least clear the area with salt, sand or ice melt.  An affordable ounce of prevention can save someone a lifetime of pain and disability from a fall on treacherous meltwater ice.

​– Steven M. Ballin, Esq.

Officers frequently work extra hours during details at events in order to financially support themselves and their families.  Events such as concerts, sporting events and fairs which bring in large crowds must be kept under control by local police, especially when alcohol is served at the event.  Officers frequently work these details at venues such as Xfinity Center, Gillette Stadium, college stadiums and fairgrounds.  I have represented numerous officers injured while restraining or arresting an intoxicated patron at such events.

Officer Brown was ten months away from a mandatory retirement when he reached 65 years old.  He was working a plain clothes detail at a stadium event.  He worked this location numerous times in the past.  The event involved a tournament with several college athletic teams participating.  While working outside the stadium, Officer Brown noticed several men acting as if they were intoxicated.  The men appeared college age and were observed stumbling and eating food off the ground.  He continued to observe them when one of the men, George Cross, stopped in a public area and leaned up against a wall.  Officer Brown then observed Cross urinating on the wall in a busy pedestrian area.   At the same time families with young children were approaching the area.  Officer Brown approached the man from behind.  He held his badge out in his extended left hand where it was clearly visible to Cross and grabbed Cross’ shoulder with his right hand.  Officer Brown loudly identified himself as a police officer and informed Cross he was under arrest.  Officer Brown intended to quietly remove the man from the public area and, if necessary, place the man in protective custody; however, the man swung around forcefully in an attempt to get away.  Officer Brown was thrown to the ground as he attempted to hold on to Cross as Cross began to pull away and run.  Officer Brown hurt his knee and neck in the fall.  Other officers working the event received a radio description of the fleeing suspect.  The suspect was subsequently apprehended in the parking lot of the stadium, arrested and charged with several crimes including resisting arrest and public indecency.  Officer Brown later learned Cross was a college athlete.

Despite discomfort in his neck, Officer Brown only missed several days of work before returning to his normal shift.  The neck discomfort did not subside and continued to increase over the next two months to the point where it was disabling.  After consulting with a neurosurgeon, a CT scan was performed.  The scan showed a large herniated disc in his neck that required emergency surgery before the condition worsened as it was pressing on the spinal cord.  Officer Brown’s surgery was successful, but it left him with residual problems.  His surgeon refused to clear him to return to the physical work of a police officer during the next nine months before Officer Brown turned 65 years old.  This is not how Officer Brown envisioned his career would end.  Adding to Officer Brown’s aggravation about this needless injury, the defendant never apologized and went on to graduate and receive national recognition for being a scholar athlete.  We calculated Officer Brown would lose an estimated $75,000 in income during the five years after his retirement from being unable to work details.  Although Officer Brown’s town paid for his injury on duty wages and medical expenses until his mandatory retirement, he lost an estimated $60,000 in detail income during the nine months following his surgery until he retired at age 65.  While Officer Brown could never put on the uniform again, Cross graduated with national recognition as a scholar athlete and was off to a financial career.

After Officer Brown consulted with me, he gave me the green light to file a lawsuit in Superior Court against Cross for negligently resisting arrest.  My philosophy in these cases is everyone in the community must obey a police officer, especially an officer’s order to submit to being arrested.  When a person doesn’t obey and an officer is injured, that person is responsible for all the harm which is caused.

During our lawsuit Cross argued, as expected, that Officer Brown’s injury and surgery three months later was not related to the incident as he had degenerative changes in his cervical spine long before the incident.  That 64 year old Officer Brown’s neck would have degenerative changes which come from age was no surprise.  However, a person can have degenerative arthritic changes throughout areas of their spine and no symptoms.  Officer Brown had no prior neck symptoms.  His surgeon was firm in his opinion and prepared to testify that the trauma which took place during the arrest caused the cervical injury on which he operated.  The injury began when Officer Brown attempted to arrest Cross and then continued to progress over the next several months.  Cross also argued Officer Brown failed to identify himself as a police officer when he grabbed Cross.  This contention was rebutted by Officer Brown and another witness nearby.  After initial litigation and negotiations, Officer Brown agreed to settle his claim against Cross for $400,000.

Officers injured on or off duty should consult with us early on, so we can determine whether you have a viable case and for you to learn what your rights are.  Sometimes we need to do some investigation to determine whether a case is worthwhile to proceed for an injured officer.  Decisions about whether to proceed with a claim always belong to the injured officer, not us, and can be made later.  When we work on these cases, we work on a contingent fee basis. That means the injured officer pays nothing up front, nor while the case is pending.  He or she only need pay for legal services and expenses at the end of the case, if we successfully collect money on their claim.   We typically will receive one-third of the money collected.  In the off chance we are unable to collect money for the injured officer, the officer owes nothing for our services.

– Steven M. Ballin, Esq.

​(In order to protect the privacy of the injured officer and witnesses, all names have been changed.  Any resemblance to names of real persons, past or present, is merely coincidental and not intended.  This injured officer agreed to have this article published in order that police officers around the Commonwealth be better educated about their legal rights to compensation when injured during such detail assignments)

Over the course of five hours, a bar serves one man ten to fifteen beers and three tequila shots before watching the man walk out to his car. Shortly after driving away from the bar around midnight, the man crosses over into oncoming traffic.

A police officer sees headlights drift over the double yellow line and approach his police cruiser on a narrow stretch of road.  He turns the cruiser to the right, but there is not enough time to avoid a front end collision.  The front end of his cruiser is demolished.  The officer’s knees are trapped under the dashboard.  He is extricated from the cruiser by the Jaws of Life.  The drunk driver is taken to the hospital where his blood alcohol level is .24, three times the legal limit.

Drunk drivers continue to threaten the safety of our communities. Bringing a dram shop action against the establishment which served a drunk driver their last drink is one method of dealing with the harms caused by drunk drivers.  A dram shop action is a claim against the establishment that served alcohol to a patron who was already exhibiting outward signs of intoxication.  If over serving costs these establishments money, they and their insurers will make sure establishments start being more careful.

These cases can be challenging.  Finding witnesses to testify the drunk driver appeared intoxicated when served is difficult, as they are often long gone by the time an attorney reviews the case.  Even identifying the bar can be a problem.  Sometimes the drunk driver is a regular who does not want to involve his local hangout by naming it.

In this case, we learned the drunk driver consumed most of his alcohol at a bar.  The drunk driver testified at his deposition he consumed ten to fifteen beers and three shots of tequila at this bar over four plus hours; however, we had no witness to testify he appeared intoxicated at the bar when last served.

In a dram shop case a plaintiff can prove with circumstantial evidence the defendant patron appeared intoxicated when served his last drinks. We had the excessive consumption from the driver’s testimony.  We also had a toxicologist prepared to testify the driver would have had a .18 blood alcohol level when last served at the bar and that most people are visibly intoxicated at a .15 blood alcohol level.  We then found two witnesses who knew the driver’s drinking habits for many years.  Both testified how the driver always began to show the visible signs of intoxication after just four to five beers.  We now had circumstantial evidence the defendant appeared intoxicated when served his last drinks at this bar.  The injured officer agreed to settle the case against the bar for $475,000 and against the drunk driver for his $20,000 auto policy limit.

Officers should become familiar with Chapter 90, Section 24J of the Massachusetts General Laws.  The statute requires the Court to ask the drunk driver at the plea or sentencing where the drunk driver had their last drink.  It is important to find out where the offending driver drank.  Just as important, assume no eyewitness to the defendant’s drinking may be found, so try and find out early on:  the amount the defendant drank, what they drank, who served them and who they were with.  Finally, contact us quickly so we can investigate the case to gather witnesses and evidence, which may be needed to pursue the drinking establishment.

​- Steven M. Ballin, Esq.