Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 223
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, § 7 (2026)

Defective ways, etc.; negligence actions

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 7. An action against a town or person to recover for injury or damage received by reason of a defect, want of repair or of an insufficient railing in or upon a public way shall be brought in the county where said town is situated or in the county where the plaintiff lives, except that such action against the city of Boston may be brought in Middlesex county, in Norfolk county or in the county where the plaintiff lives, and such action against the town of Nantucket or against any town in Dukes county may be brought in Bristol county. An action against a town or person to recover for injury or damage received in the commonwealth by reason of negligence other than that relating to such defect, want of repair or insufficient railing shall be brought in the county where the plaintiff lives or has his usual place of business, or in the county where the alleged injury or damage was received. This section shall not apply to actions that may be brought in a district court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1921–1959 · leading case: Paige v. Sinclair, 130 N.E. 177 (Mass. 1921).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paige v. Sinclair, 130 N.E. 177 (Mass. 1921). “The substance of that act, now found in G. L. c. 223, § 7, rightly is grouped with other sections under the heading “Venue of actions.”
Araban Coffee Co. v. Restaurant Assocs., Inc., 159 N.E.2d 326 (Mass. 1959). “We do not perceive that the plaintiff is aided by the fact that G. L. c. 223, § 7, was amended by St. 1923, c.”
Araban Coffee Co. v. Restaurant Assocs., Inc., 17 Mass. App. Dec. 77 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1958). “223, saw fit to amend G. L. c. 223, §7, pertaining to venue in negligence actions, making that section expressly inapplicable to actions in the district courts, without similarly limiting the applicability of section 8 with which we are here concerned.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.