Massachusetts uses modified comparative fault under G.L. c. 231, § 85: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's negligence exceeds 50%. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. That is what separates Massachusetts being sued after a car accident from a generic national summary. Read Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 85 before the background sections below. The personal-injury deadline is 3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4. Massachusetts requires no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) under G.L. c. 90, § 34M; tort claims against at-fault drivers for pain and suffering generally require meeting a medical-expense or serious-injury threshold.
Comparative fault and negligence in Massachusetts
Massachusetts uses modified comparative fault under G.L. c. 231, § 85: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's negligence exceeds 50%. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
In Massachusetts, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Massachusetts allocation rules.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Massachusetts requires no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) under G.L. c. 90, § 34M; tort claims against at-fault drivers for pain and suffering generally require meeting a medical-expense or serious-injury threshold.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Massachusetts uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
A concrete Massachusetts scenario
Here is one way the Massachusetts pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
Two drivers collide in Massachusetts. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Massachusetts, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Massachusetts uses modified comparative fault under G.L. c. 231, § 85: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's negligence exceeds 50%. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Massachusetts requires no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) under G.L. c. 90, § 34M; tort claims against at-fault drivers for pain and suffering generally require meeting a medical-expense or serious-injury threshold.
In Massachusetts the accident lawsuit turns on Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 85 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
What to do after a crash in Massachusetts
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Massachusetts) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Massachusetts
Mildred R. Correia, Administratrix, vs. the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company
Mildred R. Correia, Administratrix, vs. the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 388 Mass. 342 (1983)
…regard, Firestone contends that this court should apply the comparative negligence statute to the breach of warranty count in the same manner that it applies that statute to the negligence count, i.e., that it should treat M.G.L. c. 231, § 85, as a comparative ‘fault’ statute, or, alternatively, that this court should apply common law contributory negligence principles to the b…
Massachusetts opinions such as Mildred R. Correia, Administratrix, vs. the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "Firestone contends that this court should apply the comparative negligence statute to the breach of warranty count in the same manner that it applies that statute to the negligence count, i.e., that it should treat M.G.L. c." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Brian Mathis vs. Massachusetts Electric Company & Another
Brian Mathis vs. Massachusetts Electric Company & Another, 409 Mass. 256 (1991)
…85Q (1988 ed.). The jury also found that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The jury determined that the plaintiff was 75% at fault, while MEC was 25% at fault. Thus, the plaintiff was barred, under the comparative negligence statute, G. L. c. 231, § 85 (1988 ed.), from recovering any damages from MEC. The jury found that NET was not negligent. Judgment for the defenda…
Massachusetts opinions such as Brian Mathis vs. Massachusetts Electric Company & Another are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "Q (1988 ed.). The jury also found that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The jury determined that the plaintiff was 75% at fault, while MEC was 25% at fault. Thus, the plaintiff was barred, under the comparative negligence statute, G. L. c. 231, § 85 (1988 ed." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jean P. Clark v. Harvey F. Rowe, Jr., & another
Jean P. Clark v. Harvey F. Rowe, Jr., & another, 428 Mass. 339 (1998)
…ered the entry of judgment for Rowe, applying principles of comparative negligence to deny the plaintiff recovery for Rowe’s malpractice in the refinancing of the Haverhill property. The plaintiff’s principal contention in her appeal, which we transferred here on our own motion, is that comparative fault is inapplicable to her claim against Rowe. We affirm the judgments for Row…
Jean P. Clark v. Harvey F. Rowe, Jr., & another is worth reading on Massachusetts car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Rowe, applying principles of comparative negligence to deny the plaintiff recovery for Rowe’s malpractice in the refinancing of the Haverhill property." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Barbara S. Morgan & Others vs. Robert Lalumiere & Another
Barbara S. Morgan & Others vs. Robert Lalumiere & Another, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 262 (1986)
…efendants. *265 1. Morgan’s Appeal. (a) The instructions on comparative negligence. Morgan’s attorney made timely objection to the judge’s instruction on comparative negligence because it did not include a statement that Morgan was presumed to have been in the exercise of due care as she was crossing the street. The judge did mention to the jury that the defendants had the burd…
Practitioners open Barbara S. Morgan & Others vs. Robert Lalumiere & Another when Massachusetts car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Morgan’s Appeal. (a) The instructions on comparative negligence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Zeller v. Cantu
Zeller v. Cantu, 395 Mass. 76 (1985)
…. He contends that: (1) the enactment of the Commonwealth's comparative negligence act, G.L.c. 231, § 85 (1984 ed.), modified G.L.c. 231B so as to require consideration of comparative fault in assessing contribution among joint tortfeasors; (2) by making "principles of equity *78 applicable to contribution," G.L.c. 231B, § 2 (c) (1984 ed.), sanctions an apportionment of damages…
Massachusetts opinions such as Zeller v. Cantu are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "He contends that: (1) the enactment of the Commonwealth's comparative negligence act, G.L.c. 231, § 85 (1984 ed.), modified G.L.c." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
David Flood vs. Southland Corporation & Another
David Flood vs. Southland Corporation & Another, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 287 (1992)
…counsel told the judge that for tactical reasons, under the comparative negligence statute, he could not let Darcy out of the case. Southland opposed the amendment and argued that Flood was attempting to remove from the case the issue whether Darcy’s conduct had been intentional. Darcy’s counsel assured the judge that the issue of intentional tort, which he recognized as the *2…
On car-accident / fault, David Flood vs. Southland Corporation & Another speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "Darcy out of the case. Southland opposed the amendment and argued that Flood was attempting to remove from the case the issue whether Darcy’s conduct had been intentional." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Merrimack College v. Kpmg LLP.
Merrimack College v. Kpmg LLP., 480 Mass. 614 (2018)
…e doctrine of in pari delicto is separate and distinct from comparative negligence, codified in G. L. c. 231, § 85. Under the comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff is barred from recovery only where the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendant's, meaning that it accounts for more than fifty per cent of the parties' combined negligence. Where the plaintiff's ne…
On car-accident / fault, Merrimack College v. Kpmg LLP. speaks to the Massachusetts dispute in this passage: "G. L. c. 231, § 85. Under the comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff is barred from recovery only where the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendant's, meaning that it accounts for more than fifty per cent of the parties' combined negligence." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Selena Soederberg vs. Concord Greene Condominium Association & Another
Selena Soederberg vs. Concord Greene Condominium Association & Another, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 333 (2010)
…ce hazard was open and obvious went only to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence and did not relieve the owner of its duty of care. Agreeing with the owner, the judge adopted question number two on the special verdict form that asked whether “the danger *336 ous nature of the accumulation [was] open and obvious.” However, after the owner’s closing argument, but before the pla…
Selena Soederberg vs. Concord Greene Condominium Association & Another is worth reading on Massachusetts car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Agreeing with the owner, the judge adopted question number two on the special verdict form that asked whether “the danger *336 ous nature of the accumulation [was] open and obvious." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
- Controlling authority: Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 85.
- In Massachusetts, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4.
- Insurance: Massachusetts requires no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) under G.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Massachusetts?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 85.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Massachusetts’s modified 51 rules under Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 85.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Massachusetts, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Massachusetts?
3 years — Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 4
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Massachusetts requires no-fault personal-injury protection (PIP) under G.L. c. 90, § 34M; tort claims against at-fault drivers for pain and suffering generally require meeting a medical-expense or serious-injury threshold. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.