Massachusetts
Truck Accident Laws in Massachusetts (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

A crash with a tractor-trailer or other large commercial truck in Massachusetts is governed by two layers of law at once. Massachusetts statutes set the deadline to sue, how shared fault is treated, and a no-fault insurance system with a threshold you must meet before suing for pain and suffering, while federal regulations under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) govern how the truck and driver are supposed to operate. This guide explains both, with citations to the Massachusetts General Laws and the federal rules.
This is general legal information, not legal advice, and it does not predict any outcome in a specific case. Deadlines are strict and the no-fault rules have specific requirements, so confirm the current law and speak with a licensed Massachusetts attorney about your situation.
Deadline to file: Massachusetts's statute of limitations
Massachusetts sets a three-year clock for most injury claims. Under M.G.L. c. 260, 2A, actions of tort must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. For a truck accident injury, that period generally runs from the date of the crash, subject to a discovery rule when the harm was not immediately known.
Wrongful death has its own deadline. Under M.G.L. c. 229, 2, a wrongful death action must be brought within three years from the date of death, or within three years from when the personal representative knew or should have known of the factual basis for the claim. Because these deadlines are strict and missing one usually ends the claim, it is wise to act well before any deadline.
Massachusetts's negligence rule: modified comparative fault
Massachusetts uses modified comparative negligence under M.G.L. c. 231, 85. If you share some blame for the crash, you can still recover, but your damages are reduced in proportion to your percentage of fault. The statute bars recovery only when your negligence is greater than the total negligence of the parties you are suing, which is commonly described as the 51% bar.
In practical terms, a plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault can recover a reduced award, while a plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault recovers nothing. This is more forgiving than the pure contributory negligence rule used in a few states, but how fault is divided still directly affects what you can recover in a Massachusetts truck case.
No-fault status and the tort threshold
Massachusetts is a no-fault auto state. Under M.G.L. c. 90, 34M, every Massachusetts auto policy must provide personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, and M.G.L. c. 90, 34A sets that benefit at a limit of at least $8,000 for injury to or death of any one person. PIP covers medical expenses and a portion of lost wages after a crash regardless of who was at fault. It is meant to provide fast, first-dollar benefits, but it does not pay for pain and suffering.
One coordination rule inside Section 34A surprises many claimants. If you have health, sickness, or disability insurance, PIP will not pay more than $2,000 of the medical, surgical, X-ray, and dental expenses you incur within two years of the crash, to the extent that health plan has paid or will pay them. Past that first $2,000, those bills go to your own health insurer, while PIP continues to cover lost wages and medical costs your health plan does not reach, up to the $8,000 limit. Note that this $2,000 PIP coordination limit is a different figure from the $2,000 medical-expense tort threshold described next, even though both happen to be $2,000.

To step outside the no-fault system and sue the at-fault driver or trucking company for pain and suffering, you must clear the tort threshold in M.G.L. c. 231, 6D. The threshold is met if your reasonable and necessary medical expenses exceed $2,000, or if the injury falls into a serious-injury category: death, loss of a body member, permanent and serious disfigurement, loss of sight or hearing, or a fracture. Most serious truck-accident injuries clear this threshold easily, but it is a required step in a Massachusetts case.
Massachusetts auto insurance minimums
Massachusetts requires four compulsory coverages. As of the increase effective July 1, 2025, the minimums are bodily injury to others of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, PIP of $8,000 per person, bodily injury caused by an uninsured auto of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, and property damage of $30,000 per accident. These passenger-car minimums are modest compared with the federal coverage required of interstate trucking companies, discussed below. Because these figures were recently updated, confirm the current minimums for the year of your crash.
Damage caps in Massachusetts
Massachusetts does not impose a general cap on compensatory damages in ordinary personal injury cases, so economic losses such as medical bills and lost wages, along with non-economic damages like pain and suffering, are tied to what the evidence proves rather than a statutory ceiling. A notable exception is claims against charitable organizations, where M.G.L. c. 231, 85K caps certain tort damages, a limit that rarely applies to a commercial trucking defendant.
Federal trucking rules: the FMCSA framework
Large commercial trucks operating in interstate commerce must follow the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, enforced by the FMCSA. These rules frequently supply the evidence of fault in a truck case. Key areas include:

- Hours of service (49 CFR Part 395), which generally limit a property-carrying driver to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour on-duty window after 10 hours off duty, to combat fatigue.
- Electronic logging devices (ELDs), which most interstate drivers must use to record driving hours automatically, making it harder to falsify a logbook.
- Driver qualification and commercial driver's license (CDL) standards, plus mandatory drug-and-alcohol testing for safety-sensitive drivers.
- Vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements (49 CFR Part 396), which require carriers to keep trucks in safe operating condition.
A violation of any of these rules, such as a driver exceeding hours-of-service limits or a carrier skipping required maintenance, is commonly used as evidence of negligence.
Who can be liable in a Massachusetts truck accident
Unlike a typical car crash with one other driver, a commercial truck case often involves several potentially responsible parties. These can include the truck driver, the motor carrier (both for the driver's conduct and for its own negligent hiring, training, or supervision), a broker or shipper, the company that loaded the cargo, and a manufacturer of a defective part. Because the carrier is usually a business with substantial federally required insurance, identifying every responsible party early is important.
Federal minimum insurance for trucks
Federal law requires far more coverage from interstate trucking companies than from ordinary drivers. Under 49 CFR 387.9, a for-hire carrier transporting non-hazardous general freight in interstate commerce must maintain at least $750,000 in public liability insurance. Carriers hauling oil must carry $1 million, and those transporting the most dangerous hazardous materials must carry $5 million. These minimums dwarf the $25,000 bodily injury minimum that applies to a Massachusetts passenger car.
Preserving evidence after a truck crash
Some of the most important evidence in a truck case can disappear quickly. A truck's electronic logging device, the engine control module (often called the black box), dashcam footage, and maintenance and inspection records can be overwritten or routinely destroyed on a short schedule. Sending the carrier a written preservation, or spoliation, letter early can help keep that data from being lost.

It also helps to preserve your own evidence: the police crash report, photographs of the vehicles and scene, witness contact information, and your medical records. Documenting medical treatment is especially useful in Massachusetts, where medical expenses can determine whether you clear the tort threshold to sue for pain and suffering.
How to evaluate a Massachusetts truck accident claim
With no-fault rules, comparative fault, and federal regulations all in play, get a free claim review from a Massachusetts truck accident lawyer on whether your injury clears the tort threshold (attorney advertising). Many personal injury attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning they are paid a percentage of any recovery rather than upfront. No attorney can guarantee a result or a dollar amount.
If you are considering a claim, keep your medical treatment documented, save anything related to the crash, and be mindful of the deadlines above. Acting promptly protects both the legal deadline and the physical evidence that a truck case depends on.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for a truck accident in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts gives you 3 years from the date of the crash to file a personal injury lawsuit under M.G.L. c. 260, 2A. A wrongful death claim is also 3 years, measured from the date of death or reasonable discovery under M.G.L. c. 229, 2. These deadlines are strict, so it is wise to act well before they run.
Who can be sued after a truck accident in Massachusetts?
A truck case can involve several defendants: the driver, the motor carrier (for the driver's conduct and for negligent hiring, training, or supervision), a broker or shipper, the company that loaded the cargo, and the maker of a defective part. Identifying every responsible party early matters because the carrier usually carries large federally required insurance.
How is a truck accident different from a car accident in Massachusetts?
Truck cases add a layer of federal regulation. Interstate trucks must follow FMCSA rules on hours of service, electronic logging, driver qualification, and maintenance, and violations are common evidence of fault. Trucking companies must also carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage under 49 CFR 387.9, far above the $25,000 minimum for a Massachusetts car.
Massachusetts is a no-fault state, so can I still sue after a truck accident?
Yes, if you clear the tort threshold. Massachusetts PIP pays up to $8,000 per person regardless of fault under M.G.L. c. 90, 34A and 34M, and if you have health insurance, PIP covers no more than $2,000 of the medical expenses that plan also covers. To sue for pain and suffering you must meet M.G.L. c. 231, 6D: more than $2,000 in reasonable medical expenses, or a serious injury such as a fracture, disfigurement, loss of a body member, loss of sight or hearing, or death. Most serious truck-injury cases clear this threshold.
How does Massachusetts's comparative negligence rule affect my recovery?
Under M.G.L. c. 231, 85, your damages are reduced by your share of fault, and you are barred from recovering only if your fault is greater than the combined fault of the parties you sue (the 51% bar). So a plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault can recover a reduced amount, while one who is 51% or more at fault recovers nothing.
How much is a Massachusetts truck accident case worth?
There is no set figure. Massachusetts has no general cap on compensatory personal injury damages, so value depends on the actual harm proven, including medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering, reduced by any share of fault assigned to you. No attorney can guarantee a specific amount.
Updates
Clarified that Massachusetts PIP is mandated by M.G.L. c. 90, 34M but set at $8,000 by 34A, and added the 34A rule capping PIP at $2,000 of medical expenses when the injured person has health insurance.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 231
§ 85Comparative negligence; limited effect of contributory negligence as defenseIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Section 85. Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the total amount of negligence attributable to the person or persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made. In determining by what amount the plaintiff's damages shall be diminished in such a case, the negligence of each plaintiff shall be compared to the total negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought. The combined total of the plaintiff's negligence taken together with all of the negligence of all defendants shall equal one hundred per cent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 294 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Poirier v. Town of Plymouth (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1978, 374 Mass. 206)“…e and the abolition of the defense of assumption of risk by G. L. c. 231, § 85, the Legislature has moved in the direc…”
- O'Sullivan v. Shaw (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2000, 431 Mass. 201)“…mplicitly. abolished by the comparative negligence statute, G. L. c. 231, § 85, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1123, § 1…”
- Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 388 Mass. 342)“…atute to the negligence count, i.e., that it should treat M.G.L. c. 231, § 85, as a comparative ‘fault’ statute, or,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Massachusetts Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Massachusetts Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
§ 6DDamages for pain and suffering in tort actions arising out of operation, etc., of motor vehicles; restrictionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 6D. In any action of tort brought as a result of bodily injury, sickness or disease, arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within this commonwealth by the defendant, a plaintiff may recover damages for pain and suffering, including mental suffering associated with such injury, sickness or disease, only if the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in treating such injury, sickness or disease for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral expenses are determined to be in excess of two thousand dollars unless such injury, sickness or disease (1) causes death, or (2) consists in whole or in part of loss of a body member, or (3) consists in whole or in part of permanent and serious disfigurement, or (4) results in such loss of sight or hearing as is described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of section thirty-six of chapter one hundred and fifty-two or (5) consists of a fracture.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 72 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dziokonski v. Babineau (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1978, 375 Mass. 555)“…670), she has no enforceable claim against any defendant. G. L. c. 231, § 6D. See Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass.…”
- Chipman v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1974, 366 Mass. 253)“…the plaintiff is barred from such recovery by the terms of G. L. c. 231, § 6D , 2 From the statement…”
- Scalia v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division 1995, 1995 Mass. App. Div. 69)“…tment of an injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. G.L.c. 231, §6D. That finding is not unsupported by evi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 85KLimitation of tort liability of certain charitable organizations; liability of directors, officers or trustees of educational institutionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 85K. It shall not constitute a defense to any cause of action based on tort brought against a corporation, trustees of a trust, or members of an association that said corporation, trust, or association is or at the time the cause of action arose was a charity; provided, that if the tort was committed in the course of any activity carried on to accomplish directly the charitable purposes of such corporation, trust, or association, liability in any such cause of action shall not exceed the sum of twenty thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs; and provided further, that in the context of medical malpractice claims against a nonprofit organization providing health care, such cause of action shall not exceed the sum of $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the liability of charitable corporations, the trustees of charitable trusts, and the members of charitable associations shall not be subject to the limitations set forth in this section if the tort was committed in the course of activities primarily commercial in character even though carried on to obtain revenue to be used for charitable purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 98 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 389 Mass. 47)“…lege and Person in the amount of $175,000. [2] Pursuant to G.L.c. 231, § 85K, the trial judge reduced the amount of…”
- Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston University (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1997, 425 Mass. 1)“…gainst charitable entities for tort liability, contained in G. L. c. 231, § 85K, does not apply to liability under G. L…”
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 443 Mass. 367)“…on filed by Dana-Farber requesting that the charitable cap, G. L. c. 231, § 85K, be applied to the judgment against it;…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90
§ 34MPersonal injury protectionIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
[ First paragraph effective until February 24, 2026. For text effective February 24, 2026, see below.] Section 34M. Every motor vehicle liability policy and every motor vehicle liability bond, as defined in section thirty-four A, issued or executed in this commonwealth shall provide personal injury protection benefits as defined therein except to the extent such defined benefits to an insured or obligor or members of an insured's or obligor's household may be modified, reduced or eliminated by the purchase of the deductible authorized in this section. The benefits due and payable under any motor vehicle liability policy or bond as a result of the provisions therein providing personal injury protection benefits, and any benefits due any person entitled to make claim under the assigned claims plan established in accordance with section thirty-four N, are granted in lieu of damages otherwise recoverable by the injured person or persons in tort as a result of an accident occurring within this commonwealth. [ First paragraph as amended by 2025, 78, Sec. 2 effective February 24, 2026.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 257 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- DiMarzo v. American Mutual Insurance (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 389 Mass. 85)“…tual claims that since the terms of the applicable statute, G. L. c. 90, § 34M, entitled it to deduct the P.-I.P. paym…”
- Dodd v. Commercial Union Insurance (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1977, 373 Mass. 72)“…er the Massachusetts no-fault motor vehicle insurance laws, G. L. c. 90, §§ 34M-340, et seq., and requests that the cou…”
- Parrell v. Keenan (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 389 Mass. 809)“…no-fault insurance personal injury protection coverage. See G. L. c. 90, §§ 34M, 340. An attorney acting for the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 260
§ 2ATort, contract to recover for personal injuries, and replevin actionsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Section 2A. Except as otherwise provided, actions of tort, actions of contract to recover for personal injuries, and actions of replevin, shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 682 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hendrickson v. Sears (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1974, 365 Mass. 83)“…ification of title to real estate “accrues” for purposes of G. L. c. 260, § 2A. We hold that the cause of action does…”
- Olsen v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 388 Mass. 171)“…oss of consortium are barred by the statute of limitations, G. L. c. 260, § 2A. We hold that the plaintiffs’ claims ar…”
- Baldassari v. Public Finance Trust (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 369 Mass. 33)“…3A, § 9 (1). The Baldassari claims, we hold, were barred by G. L. c. 260, § 2A, inserted by St. 1948, c. 274, § 2, the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Jury Duty Laws: Pay, Exemptions and Employer Rules, Massachusetts Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability, Massachusetts Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 229
§ 2Wrongful death; damagesIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Section 2. A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person, or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (3) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his negligence causes the death of a passenger, or (4) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a passenger under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (5) is responsible for a breach of warranty arising under Article 2 of chapter one hundred and six which results in injury to a person that causes death, shall be liable in damages in the amount of: (1) the fair monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, as provided in section one, including but not limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 283 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1980, 381 Mass. 507)“…f the reasonably expected ... society ... of the decedent." G.L.c. 229, § 2, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 699, § 1.…”
- Gaudette v. Webb (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1972, 362 Mass. 60)“…ul death statute in effect at the time of Gaudette’s death, G. L. c. 229, § 2, as appearing in St. 1958, c. 238, § 1,…”
- Gallant v. Worcester (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1981, 383 Mass. 707)“…mental death liability mere surplusage after 1978. In 1979, G.L.c. 229, § 2, was amended to update the statute of l…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Medical Malpractice Laws in Massachusetts (2026): Deadlines, Punitive Damages in Massachusetts: Statute-Only Rule (2026), Massachusetts Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49
§ 387.9Financial responsibility, minimum levels.In forcecited in 55 of our articles
The minimum levels of financial responsibility referred to in § 387.7 are hereby prescribed as follows: Table 1 to § 387.9—Schedule of Limits—Public Liability Type of carriage Commodity transported January 1, 1985 (1) For-hire (In interstate or foreign commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Property (nonhazardous) $750,000 (2) For-hire and Private (In interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Hazardous substances, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, transported in bulk in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles; in bulk Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 materials; in bulk Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A material, in bulk Division 2.1 or 2.2 material; or highway route controlled quantities of a Class 7 material, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 5,000,000 (3) For-hire and Private (In interstate or foreign commerce, in any quantity; or in intrastate commerce, in bulk only; with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Oil listed in 49 CFR 172.101; hazardous waste, hazardous materials, or hazardous substances defined in 49…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (2009) held an MCS-90 endorsement applies only where the underlying policy gives no coverage and the carrier's insurance falls below the minimums 49 CFR 387.9 prescribes. GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (2010) found that purpose met once other coverage exceeded the 387.9 amount.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (District Court, D. Minnesota 2010, 734 F. Supp. 2d 718)“…ardous commodities is $750,000. 49 U.S.C. § 31139 (b)(2); 49 C.F.R. § 387.9 . Under the Federal Motor Carrie…”
- Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 584 F.3d 868)✓A trucker's own insurer paid the Yeateses the full $750,000 that section 387.9 sets as the minimum for non-hazardous property, and the en banc court held a second insurer's MCS-90 endorsement was therefore never triggered and added no coverage.
- American Inter-Fidelity Exchange v. American Re-Insurance Company (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1994, 17 F.3d 1018)✓A truck insurer sought reinsurance for $846,256 in deductibles it paid accident victims but could not collect; the court read the mandatory endorsement to require insurers to cover victims from the first dollar up to section 387.9's minimums, and reversed the dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws by State (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Alabama (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Alaska (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Sources and References
- M.G.L. c. 260, 2A: tort actions must be commenced within 3 years after the cause of action accrues (Massachusetts personal injury statute of limitations)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 229, 2: Massachusetts wrongful death action; commenced within 3 years of death or reasonable discovery(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231, 85: Massachusetts modified comparative negligence; recovery barred only if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendants' (the 51% bar)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231, 6D: Massachusetts tort threshold; more than $2,000 in medical expenses or a serious injury (fracture, disfigurement, loss of body member, sight, hearing, or death) to sue for pain and suffering(malegislature.gov).gov
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts: compulsory auto coverages including PIP ($8,000), bodily injury to others, uninsured auto, and property damage minimums(mass.gov).gov
- 49 CFR 387.9: minimum financial responsibility for motor carriers, including $750,000 for general freight, $1 million for oil, and $5 million for certain hazardous materials(law.cornell.edu)
- FMCSA Summary of Hours of Service Regulations (49 CFR Part 395): 11-hour driving limit within a 14-hour window for property-carrying drivers(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 90, 34A: defines personal injury protection; benefit limit of at least $8,000 per person, and no more than $2,000 of medical, surgical, X-ray and dental expenses within two years where the injured person has health, sickness, or disability insurance(malegislature.gov)
- M.G.L. c. 90, 34M: every Massachusetts motor vehicle liability policy must provide personal injury protection benefits as defined in Section 34A; benefits due and payable as loss accrues(malegislature.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.