Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 26 (2026)

Accident reports; supplemental report; penalty for violation

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 26. Every person operating a motor vehicle which is involved in an accident in which any person is killed or injured or in which there is damage in excess of one thousand dollars to any one vehicle or other property shall, within five days after such accident, report in writing to the registrar on a form approved by him and send a copy thereof to the police department having jurisdiction on the way where such accident occurred; provided, however, that such police department shall accept a report filed by an owner or operator whose vehicle has been damaged in an accident in which another person has unlawfully left the scene of such accident. Such report shall not be required during the period of incapacity of any person who is physically incapable of making a report. If the operator is not the owner of the vehicle and is physically incapable of making such written report, the owner shall within five days after the accident make such report based on such knowledge as he may have and such information as he can obtain regarding the accident.

The registrar may require any such operator or owner to file a supplementary written report whenever in the opinion of the registrar the original report is insufficient.

The registrar may revoke or suspend the license of any person violating any provision of this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1930–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Sasu, 536 N.E.2d 603 (Mass. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Sasu, 536 N.E.2d 603 (Mass. 1989). · cites it 4× “This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court vacating a finding by the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department that defendant George Sasu was “responsible” for failing to file a motor vehicle accident report as…”

Commonwealth v. Thorpe, 429 N.E.2d 722 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 3× “The defendant appeals from his conviction of a violation of G. L. c. 90, § 26, and claims that the judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss the complaint.”

Kelly v. O'NEIL, 296 N.E.2d 223 (Mass. App. Ct. 1973). “The second item of evidence admitted subject to the defendant’s exception was a signed carbon copy of the accident report which the plaintiff herself had filed with the Georgetown police department pursuant to the requirements of G. L. c. 90, § 26 (as most recently amended by St.”

Brest v. Comm'r of Ins., 169 N.E. 657 (Mass. 1930). “It is and has been for many years a statutory requirement that all motor vehicle accidents resulting in bodily injury or death must be reported in writing forthwith to the registrar of motor vehicles, and he is also empowered to investigate all such accidents.”

Genova v. Genova, 554 N.E.2d 1221 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 4× “In his accident report, filed conformably with G.L.c. 90, § 26, the husband's account was that he had looked in his side-view mirror before beginning to negotiate the U-turn, that he had seen a car heading in his direction about 600 feet away and travelling at a moderate speed.”

Crete v. Audet, 234 N.E.2d 733 (Mass. 1968). · cites it 2× “See as to these reports, G. L. c. 90, § 26, as amended (fn. 6, infra).”

Commonwealth v. Sasu, 1988 Mass. App. Div. 21 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1988). · cites it 14× “At issue is the trial court’s finding of “responsible” entered against the defendant on a charge of failing to file a motor vehicle accident report as required by G.L. c.90, §26. This case arose from a June 25,1986 incident in Belmont, Massachusetts in which a motor vehicle…”

LUZ HARVEY & Another v. ELIAS ASSED (& a Consol. Case). (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “The defendant himself had given the incorrect address in a report of the accident that was statutorily required under G. L. c. 90, § 26. Id. at 726. Although the court stopped short of deciding that the defendant was estopped as a matter of law from denying the address in the…”

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.