Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1 (2026)

Enumeration

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 1. In addition to the actions which survive by the common law, the following shall survive:—

(1) Actions under chapter two hundred and forty-seven;

(2) Actions of tort (a) for assault, battery, imprisonment or other damage to the person; (b) for consequential damages arising out of injury to the person and consisting of expenses incurred by a husband, wife, parent or guardian for medical, nursing, hospital or surgical services in connection with or on account of such injury; (c) for goods taken or carried away or converted; or (d) for damage to real or personal property; and

(3) Actions against sheriffs for the misconduct or negligence of themselves or their deputies.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1923–2025 · leading case: Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, Inc., 465 Mass. 165 (Mass. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, Inc., 465 Mass. 165 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 6× “93A pursuant to the Massachusetts survival statute, G. L. c. 228, § 1, distinct from their claims under the wrongful death act, G.”

Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill, 981 N.E.2d 671 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 5× “Since fraud is a tort not enumerated in G. L. c. 228, § 1, Kraft’s fraud claim does not survive Marino’s death, and properly was dismissed.”

Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Constr., Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 5× “c. 260, § 2B. Were we to hold otherwise, no contractor would ever be able to "put a project to rest.”

Butler v. Anderson (In Re C.R. Stone Concrete Contractors, Inc.), 462 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011). · cites it 10× “84 In an effort to abrogate the common law rule, which often produced strange and unfair results, 85 the Massachusetts legislature enacted Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1 , which provides: In addition to the actions which survive by the common law, the following shall survive:— (1)…”

Pobieglo v. Monsanto Co., 521 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 6× “Claims for conscious pain and suffering survive by virtue of G.L.c. 228, § 1. Id. That claims for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering are premised upon different theories of recovery and are intended for separate categories of beneficiaries is recognized in the…”

McStowe v. Bornstein, 388 N.E.2d 674 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 5× “The defendants rest their argument that the plaintiff’s claim did not survive the attorney’s death on principles of the common law and on the inapplicability of G. L. c. 228, § 1, as amended through St.”

Gasior v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1789 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 4× “151B, § 4, survive the plaintiff’s death pursuant to G. L. c. 228, § 1, insofar as the plaintiff claims compensatory but not punitive damages?” 2 We granted Gasior’s application for direct appellate review.”

Brenner v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 867 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2017). “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1 enumerates the only tort actions that do not extinguish upon the death of a party.”

Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 465 Mass. 411 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 2× “93A, § 9, survives Marie’s death under G. L. c. 228, § 1, because it is premised on a contractual claim (alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability) combined with a tort claim “that is substantively akin to the types of torts within the scope of G.”

Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003). “229, §§ 1 and 2; G. L. c. 228, § 1. See Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co.”

Pomeroy v. Ashburnham Westminster Reg'l Sch. Dist., 410 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. Mass. 2006). · cites it 3× “, for replevin]; (2) Actions of tort (a) for assault, battery, imprisonment or other damage to the person; (b) for consequential damages arising out of injury to the person and consisting of expenses incurred by a husband, wife, parent or guardian for medical, nursing, hospital…”

Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 452 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2008). “In any event, in Massachusetts, a loss of chance claim brought under our survival statute, G. L. c. 228, § 1, rather than our wrongful death statute, would not appear to allow recovery for “the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society,…”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1(2) — 3 cases

Ellis v. Ford Motor Co., 628 F. Supp. 849 (D. Mass. 1986).

Lyon v. Triram Corp., 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 419 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004).

Est. of Gavin v. Tewksbury State Hosp., 981 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013).

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1(c) — 1 case

Butler v. Anderson (In Re C.R. Stone Concrete Contractors, Inc.), 462 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011). “84 In an effort to abrogate the common law rule, which often produced strange and unfair results, 85 the Massachusetts legislature enacted Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 228, § 1 , which provides: In addition to the actions which survive by the common law, the following shall survive:— (1)…”

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.