BIG DIG SITE

 

Jurisdiction:  Suffolk Superior Court, Boston, MA
    
     This case involved an allegation that the plaintiff suffered an injury while a pedestrian and as a result of a defect created by one or more of the “big-dig” contractors.  The “big-dig” was one of the largest civil engineering projects in the history of the United States and required a number of surface streets to be removed, re-aligned, and altered for pedestrian traffic.  The plaintiff in this case alleged that as a result of a number of holes that had been dug for excavation purposes in order to locate antiquated electrical, water, sewer and power lines beneath the City of Boston, she fell as a result of a severe depression in the street and sustained serious bilateral knee injuries.  As a result of the knee injury, she claimed that she suffered from a complicating medical condition at the time understood as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD).
     As a result, the 47‑year‑old plaintiff claimed that she would be unable to work and earn meaningful income for the remainder of her life, and was substantially disabled and limited in her ability to walk and move.  She could be transported with the use of a wheelchair and/or full leg braces and had to have her home altered in order to care for this disabling condition.  The plaintiff claimed that she required extensive pain medication on a daily basis and had been treating for a period of more than three years with the daily pain medication (Oxycontin) up until the time of trial. 
The plaintiff’s medical expenses had exceeded $100,000.00 with knee surgery, pain clinic treatments and repeated nerve blocks.  The plaintiff claimed that future medical expenses and lost income exceeded $1,000,000.00 and that she would be substantially disabled the remainder of her life.
     The matter was tried for approximately one week and resulted in a mis-trial as a result of plaintiff testifying that she had been found permanently and totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.  Thus, our motion for a mis-trial was granted.  A new trial commenced three days later and prior to the commencement of the second trial, the Court granted bifurcation.  The matter was tried on liability and involved direct issues as to the duties of each of the “big-dig” contractors.  It was the position of the contractors, all represented by us, that this particular street pursuant to contractual arrangement with the City of Boston had been returned to the care, custody, control and possession of the City of Boston and that no duty was owed.  There were “fact- questions” pertaining to the duty.  The jury concluded in favor of all four defendants and returned a defense verdict after two weeks of trial.      
There were a number of evidentiary issues pertaining to testimony relating to the obligations of the various contractors, and the matter was appealed before the Massachusetts Appeals Court.  The appeal was also handled by us.  The defendants again prevailed on appeal and the case was thereby dismissed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2003.