Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1

Damages for death from defective ways; persons entitled

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

Section 1. If the life of a person is lost by reason of a defect or a want of repair of or a want of a sufficient railing in or upon a way, causeway or bridge, the county, city, town or person by law obliged to repair the same shall, if it or he had previous reasonable notice of the defect or want of repair or want of railing, be liable in damages not exceeding four thousand dollars, to be assessed with reference to the degree of culpability of the defendant and recovered in an action of tort commenced within two years after the injury causing the death by the executor or administrator of the deceased person, to the use of the following persons and in the following shares:

(1) If the deceased shall have been survived by a wife or husband and no children or issue surviving, then to the use of such surviving spouse.

(2) If the deceased shall have been survived by a wife or husband and by one child or by the issue of one deceased child, then one half to the use of such surviving spouse and one half to the use of such child or his issue by right of representation.

(3) If the deceased shall have been survived by a wife or husband and by more than one child surviving either in person or by issue, then one third to the use of such surviving spouse and two thirds to the use of such surviving children or their issue by right of representation.

(4) If there is no surviving wife or husband, then to the use of the next of kin.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1922–2023 · leading case: Gallant v. Worcester

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gallant v. Worcester (1981) mass · cites it 13× “84, §§ 15, 18, and 19, and G.L.c. 229, § 1. The city further maintained that the claims under G.”

Huff v. City of Holyoke (1982) mass · cites it 5× “We do not, however, reach that question because the plaintiff has stated a cause of action that is cognizable under G. L. c. 229, § 1, and G. L. c. 84, § 15, rather than one for common law nuisance.”

Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (1975) mass · cites it 6× “Accordingly, we hold that, where, as here, an eight and one-half month unborn viable fetus is killed, the fetus is a person for purposes of our wrongful death statute, and the administrator of the estate has a right of action, on behalf of the next of kin, as set forth in G.L.c.…”

Xuncax v. Gramajo (1995) mad · cites it 3× “Mass.Gen.L. ch. 229, § 1. Thus, Xuncax, Doe, and Callejas have a cause of action under 28 U.”

Gallant v. City of Worcester (1981) mass · cites it 12× “84, §§ 15, 18, and 19, and G. L. c. 229, § 1. The city further maintained that the claims under G.”

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) mass “209, § 32); and the right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions (G. L. c. 229, §§ 1 and 2; G. L. c. 228, § 1.”

Attorney General v. Desilets (1994) mass · cites it 2× “) (surviving spouse listed first in schedule of persons entitled to appointment to administer intestate's estate); G.L.c. 229, § 1 (1992 ed.) (right of surviving spouse to bring wrongful death action); G.”

Bratcher v. Galusha (1994) mass · cites it 5× “The judge ruled that the plain language of G. L. c. 229, § 1 (1992 ed.), provides that, when a decedent is survived by a spouse and no children, only the surviving spouse is entitled to recover damages; therefore, the parents of the decedent had no claim under the wrongful death…”

Norman v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (1988) mass · cites it 2× “[4] See G.L.c. 229, § 1(4); [5] Poyser v. United States, 602 F.”

Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, Inc. (2013) mass “We conclude that at least in a case such as this, where the designated beneficiaries under G. L. c. 229, § 1, appear to be the same as the persons entitled to inherit Jacob’s estate under the statutory intestacy scheme, see G.”

Gaudette v. Webb (1972) mass · cites it 2× “” See now G. L. c. 229, § 1, as amended. By St. 1840, c.”

Mitchell v. United States (1998) ca1 “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1 (emphasis added).”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1(1) — 1 case

Booten v. United States (2000) mad

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1(2) — 1 case

Doyon v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1986) massappct

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1(3) — 3 cases

Gaudette v. Webb (1972) mass “” See now G. L. c. 229, § 1, as amended. By St. 1840, c.”

Ellis v. Ford Motor Co. (1986) mad

Crowl Ex Rel. the Estate of Crowl v. M. Chin Realty Trust (2010) mad

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 1(4) — 4 cases

Norman v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (1988) mass “[4] See G.L.c. 229, § 1(4); [5] Poyser v. United States, 602 F.”

Xuncax v. Gramajo (1995) mad “Mass.Gen.L. ch. 229, § 1. Thus, Xuncax, Doe, and Callejas have a cause of action under 28 U.”

Knowlton v. Spillane (1991) mad

Crowl Ex Rel. the Estate of Crowl v. M. Chin Realty Trust (2010) mad

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.