Call us for a free consultation

CCM

Minor Child Sustains Closed Head Injury in Golf Cart Accident

In October 2010, the minor plaintiff, then a twelve-year-old girl, visited a friend and spent the weekend at that family’s home. The defendant’s family lived in a gated community in which it was common to travel by golf cart and the family-owned one for that purpose. One afternoon, the defendant’s mother gave her daughter a “lesson” on how to operate the golf cart and allowed the two twelve-year-old girls to ride the motorized vehicle unsupervised. Shortly thereafter, with the plaintiff as a passenger, the defendant’s daughter operated the golf cart at excessive speeds and attempted to “jump” a speed bump within the development. In doing so, the plaintiff was ejected from the open vehicle, striking her head on the cement, causing a closed head injury.

Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that the negligence of the parents, as well as the minor child operating the golf cart, caused this accident. Specifically, the defendant’s parents were negligent in allowing their minor daughter, in contravention of the golf cart manufacturer’s explicit warnings, to operate such a motorized vehicle. The machine’s owner’s manual designated only licensed drivers to operate the golf cart and to never leave children unattended on the vehicle. Despite these clear and explicit warnings, the parents permitted and in fact encouraged the minor children to operate the golf car as the mother gave a “lesson” beforehand. Plaintiff’s also alleged the defendant minor child was negligent in her operation of the golf cart in traveling at excessive speeds while attempting to “jump” speed bumps.

The minor plaintiff sustained several fractures to her skull and was closely monitored at the intensive care unit for five days. She suffered from cognitive and emotional deficits months post-accident and special accommodations were made for her at school. At the plaintiff’s one-year neuropsychological test, she was found to have made a near-complete recovery and no longer required any accommodations at school. She ultimately maintained the same grade point average she had prior to the accident. She accumulated only $38,000.00 in medical expenses and was assessed as having reached an end medical result.

The case was settled prior to the suit ever having to be filed.

Your Recovery Starts With One Call

Talk Directly with a Seasoned Attorney About Your Case

Related Articles

CCM
Is Lane Splitting Legal in Massachusetts Under M.G.L. c. 89, § 4A?

No. M.G.L. c. 89, § 4A requires vehicles to remain entirely within a single marked lane and generally prohibits a motorcycle from passing another motor vehicle within the same lane. As a result, riding between

CCM
How Does the FMCSA 14-Hour On-Duty Window Under 49 CFR § 395.3 Affect Massachusetts Truck Accident Liability?

Breaking the federal 14-hour rule does not automatically make a trucking company liable for your crash. It is, however, strong evidence that the driver or carrier violated a federal safety regulation. In Massachusetts, a violation

CCM
What Is the 11-Hour Driving Limit Under 49 CFR § 395.3 and How Can It Prove Negligence in a Massachusetts Truck Accident?

The 11-hour driving limit under 49 CFR § 395.3 prohibits a commercial truck driver from driving for more than 11 hours after taking 10 consecutive hours off duty. When a truck driver exceeds this federal