Massachusetts Injury Verdicts and Settlements

This page discusses settlement amounts and jury payouts in Massachusetts personal injury lawsuits. Our lawyers also explain the law governing these claims.

Below are sample settlement amounts and jury payouts in Massachusetts personal injury accident and malpractice lawsuits.

Massachusetts Injury Verdicts and Settlements

In Massachusetts, settlement amounts and jury payouts in personal injury cases depend on a combination of factors, and it is not an exact science. The first and most significant element is the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries—both physical and emotional. Serious injuries like fractures, permanent disabilities, or emotional trauma often lead to higher compensation, as do cases involving long-term medical care or significant lifestyle changes. Simply stated, the more a person’s life is upended, the higher the potential damages. Massachusetts thankfully has no cap on compensatory damages in most personal injury cases, which means there is no hard limit to what someone can recover for their pain and suffering (other than the judge finding it excessive).

Economic losses play a significant role as well. This includes medical bills, lost wages, and other measurable expenses. For example, if someone misses work for months or needs costly rehabilitation, those numbers can quickly add up in both settlements and jury verdicts. On the flip side, the more specific and documented these expenses are, the harder it is for the defense to argue against them—it is like bringing receipts to an argument. They are difficult to ignore.  Moreover, jurors use economic losses as a marker for what the pain and suffering damages should be.  Still, our lawyers have gotten great verdicts and settlements in cases where the economic damages are low.

Finally, the question of fault can determine the outcome of a case.  Really, that should be listed first.  You have to have a chance of winning the case to get a real settlement offer. Massachusetts uses a modified comparative fault rule, which means that if a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover damages. However, if the defendant is clearly more at fault, the situation changes entirely.

The human factor also plays a significant role in these cases. How likable the plaintiff is, how credible the witnesses are, and even the mood of the jury can all influence the final outcome.  This impacts settlement too because adjusters and lawyers have to predict how likeable and credible the plaintiff and the defendant will be when calculating settlement payouts.

• 2024, Massachusetts: $2,000,000 Verdict. The plaintiff was struck when the defendant lost control of his vehicle after speeding and weaving in and out of traffic and crossed into the opposite lanes of travel, colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff reportedly suffered a brain injury with bleed, a right femur fracture which required internal fixation surgery, T5 and L5 vertebrae fractures, multiple rib fractures, a metacarpal fracture of the fourth finger of the left hand which required surgery and pulmonary contusions. The plaintiff claimed that his injuries left him permanently unable to return to work.
• 2024, Massachusetts: $1,779,000 Verdict. The plaintiff said a light fixture from the ceiling of an elevator fell and hit her in the head while she was lawfully at a funeral home owned and operated by the defendant. The plaintiff reportedly suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the incident at hand. The plaintiff claimed her injuries were permanent, rendering her unable to work. The plaintiff reported headaches, confusion, difficulty concentrating, photo and phono phobias, and also claimed to develop PTSD as a result of the incident.
• 2024, Massachusetts: $650,000 Verdict. The plaintiff was walking her dogs through a recreation area. The defendant stopped across the road with his dog and left the dog unattended while he went inside to go to the bathroom. The defendant’s dog attacked the plaintiff’s dog and she was seriously injured tried to stop the fight. She suffered wounds to her right wrist, both hands, including her right middle finger, and both knees.
• 2024, Massachusetts: $10,000 Verdict. The plaintiff as a paying customer of the public transit commuter rail operated by defendant Keolis Commuter Services LLC when he was assaulted and battered by an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff said he was yelled at for no justifiable reason, and then upon arrival at his destination he was attacked, pushed and choked on the platform, in an incident that was video recorded and aired on the local news.
• 2023, Massachusetts: $147,000 Verdict. The plaintiff was attending a family member’s birthday at a restaurant owned and maintained by defendant Breakaway Inc. and was attempting to enter the property when he tripped and fell due to a step-up at the entryway of the building and suffered multiple fractures on his leg. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to properly warn guests that a high step-up existed between the exterior and interior threshold of the building and utilizing a dangerous and defective style of door closer system.
• 2022, Massachusetts: $38,000 Verdict. A man was T-boned at the intersection of Hyde Park Avenue and River Street in Boston. He suffered personal injuries. The man alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed she failed to maintain an appropriate lookout, yield the right-of-way, and avoid a collision. The jury awarded $38,000.
• 2022, Massachusetts: $6,200 Verdict. A 48-year-old man was sideswiped. He suffered cervical and lumbar strains and sprains, a left knee contusion, and left shoulder impingement syndrome. The man alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed she ran a stop sign and failed to yield the right-of-way. The jury awarded $6,200.
• 2021, Massachusetts: $106,000 Verdict. A woman danced on a tavern’s elevated dance platform. She fell from the platform. The woman tore her right ACL. She underwent an ACL reconstruction and physical therapy. The woman experienced residual pain and decreased knee mobility. She alleged negligence against the tavern. The woman claimed it failed to install fall prevention equipment, adequately light the premises, warn patrons of the hazard, and follow Massachusetts building codes. She received $106,000.
• 2021, Massachusetts: $7,000,000 Verdict. A 52-year-old schoolteacher was struck. She suffered head trauma. The woman also sustained a scalp laceration, a skull fracture, an elbow laceration, a sacral abrasion, and spinal tenderness. She died several days later. The woman’s family alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. They claimed he failed to yield to a pedestrian and negligently drove while legally blind in one eye. The family received $7,000,000.
• 2021, Massachusetts: $2,000,000 Settlement. A 45-year-old man suffered chronic right nostril congestion and nosebleeds for two weeks. He presented to a nurse practitioner. The man was diagnosed with a cold. He presented to his primary care physician four months later. The man complained of left nostril nosebleeds and worsening congestion. He was diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. The man received Zyrtec and Flonase. His symptoms failed to resolve. The man presented to another nurse practitioner. He was told to continue his treatments. The man presented to a specialist nine months later. His CT scan revealed nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The man died shortly after being diagnosed. His family alleged negligence against the primary care physician and nurse practitioners. They claimed they delayed his treatments and failed to timely make a specialist referral. This case settled for $2,000,000.
• 2021, Massachusetts: $125,000 Settlement. A 14-year-old pedestrian was struck at a Lynn crosswalk. He fractured his left distal ulna and radius. The boy received a splint. He underwent a wrist repair ten days later. The boy wore a cast for four weeks. He underwent physical therapy for two additional weeks. The boy’s father alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed he failed to maintain an appropriate lookout and safely brake his vehicle. This case settled for $125,000.
• 2020, Massachusetts: $1,950,000 Settlement. A 35-year-old woman was hospitalized for pneumonia. Her symptoms resolved. The woman underwent two follow-up X-rays one and seven months later. They revealed a lung lesion. However, the radiologists failed to report it. Three years later, the woman underwent a third CT scan. She was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer. The woman was given a 10 percent chance of survival. She alleged negligence against the radiologists. The woman claimed they improperly interpreted her X-rays and delayed her lung cancer diagnosis. She argued that a timely diagnosis would have increased her survival chances. This case settled for $1,950,000.
• 2020, Massachusetts: $1,000,000 Verdict. A 46-year-old cyclist was struck. He suffered a concussion, a dislocated right shoulder, a fractured right humeral head, a left rotator cuff tear, a neck injury, contusions, and abrasions. The man was left with cognitive issues and depression. He alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. The man claimed she excessively sped and failed to maintain an appropriate lookout. A jury awarded him $1,000,000.
• 2020, Massachusetts: $2,850,000 Verdict. A 71-year-old man underwent neck surgery. During the procedure, the orthopedist misplaced a surgical screw. As a result, the man suffered nerve compression and bleeding around a cervical artery. He wore a halo brace for six months. The man suffered an infection. He also experienced residual neck pain. The man’s arms lost significant mobility. He now required home nursing care. The man alleged negligence against the orthopedist. He claimed he failed to properly perform the neck procedure and timely address his surgical injuries. The jury awarded $2,850,000.
• 2020, Massachusetts: $300,000 Verdict. A 53-year-old farmer was struck by a tractor’s trailer at a work site.  The impact threw him about forty feet. The man suffered spinal radiculopathy. He underwent injections. The man was left with right limb tingling and numbness throughout his right limbs. He alleged negligence against the trucking company. The man claimed its employee negligently released the trailer tailgate. A Worcester County jury awarded $300,000.

Massachusetts Personal Injury Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations in Massachusetts for personal injury, malpractice, or accident claims is three years.  This is usually a hard deadline for filing a lawsuit.

Massachusetts Minors Have Longer Deadline to Sue

Minors have a longer statute of limitations for minors bringing birth injury or medical malpractice claims.  The deadline to sue for minors is three years from the date the cause of action accrues or until age nine years for minors under six years of age at the time the cause of action accrues. There is also a hard statute of repose of seven years from the date of the act or omission that caused the injury.

The deadline for other tort claims – such as a car accident lawsuits – is even longer.  In these cases, the victim has until her 21st birthday.

Massachusetts Discovery Rule

Massachusetts has a discovery rule.  The time to file a claim begins to accrue when the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have learned, that she suffered an injury from the defendant’s conduct.  So the question is whether a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s situation should have discovered the cause of her injuries.

Massachusetts Sex Abuse Statute of Limitations

Massachusetts wisely has a different statute of limitations for minor children who have been sexual abused.  Lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of a minor have “within 35 years of the acts alleged to have caused an injury or condition or within 7 years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an emotional or psychological injury or condition was caused by said act, whichever period expires later; provided, however, that the time limit for commencement of an action under this section is tolled for a child until the child reaches eighteen years of age.”

Massachusetts Comparative Fault Rule

Massachusetts follows a modified comparative fault rule in personal injury cases. This standard allows plaintiffs to recover compensation even if they share some degree of responsibility for an accident. However, if a plaintiff is found to be 51% or more at fault, they are barred from recovering any damages. Importantly, if the plaintiff’s fault is 50% or less, their recovery is simply reduced by their percentage of fault. This ensures that victims can still pursue compensation for their injuries as long as their negligence does not exceed that of the defendant.

For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but found to be 30% at fault, their recovery would be reduced to $70,000 to reflect their share of responsibility. This system acknowledges the complexity of real-world accidents while ensuring that victims are not entirely denied justice for the harm caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The comparative fault rule also incentivizes defendants to resolve claims fairly and promptly. Plaintiffs should work with experienced personal injury attorneys to present compelling evidence that minimizes any claim of shared fault. This strategic approach is critical to securing maximum compensation and holding negligent parties accountable.

Pre-Judgement Interest

Massachusetts Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Victims of sexual abuse or assault in Massachusetts have the right to seek justice through civil lawsuits and demand financial compensation for the harm and emotional suffering caused by the abuse. The civil legal system empowers survivors to hold not only the perpetrator accountable but also third-party entities whose negligence may have contributed to the abuse. This includes institutions such as schools, religious organizations, youth programs, or corporations that failed to properly supervise, screen, or respond to reports of misconduct. By pursuing these claims, survivors can obtain financial restitution for medical bills, therapy costs, lost income, and the emotional toll inflicted by the abuse.

Civil lawsuits for sexual abuse typically target third parties who could have stopped the abuse.  So the focus in almost every sex abuse lawsuit our lawyers handle is on the negligence of institutions that failed in their duty to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly in settings involving minors or positions of trust. For example, cases against schools, religious organizations, or youth programs frequently examine whether the institution had proper safeguards in place, such as thorough background checks, adequate training, or timely responses to red flags about an employee or volunteer’s behavior. These lawsuits can also delve into patterns of cover-ups or willful ignorance to a sometimes mind blowing extent. One of the most awful things we see is sex abuse lawsuits is transferring known offenders to new positions without notifying authorities or taking steps to prevent further abuse. By exposing these lapses, survivors not only seek compensation but also drive reforms within these organizations, ensuring that policies and procedures are implemented to prevent future abuse.

Massachusetts law provides survivors with the ability to bring negligence claims against third-party defendants who played a role in enabling the abuse. For example, a school that ignored reports of inappropriate behavior by an employee or a religious organization that knowingly transferred an accused abuser to another location could be held liable in a in a Massachusetts sex abuse lawsuit. These cases often hinge on whether the defendant had a duty to protect the victim and whether their failure to act responsibly directly contributed to the harm. Filing a lawsuit not only offers survivors the chance to recover compensation but also holds negligent institutions accountable, encouraging systemic change to prevent future abuse. Survivors are encouraged to consult experienced attorneys to understand their rights and navigate the complexities of these claims.

Strict Liability for Dog Bite Cases

Traditionally, if dog attacked and injured someone, the owner was only liable if they had reason to know that the dog was aggressive (i.e., if they had attacked or bitten someone before). Massachusetts has eliminate this rule and adopted what is known as “strict liability” for dog attack cases.

If any dog” [injures a person or their property, the dog owner] “shall be liable for such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.

Mass. G.L. ch. 140 § 155

So Massachusetts takes a firm, victim-focused approach to dog bite cases by adopting strict liability for dog owners. This means that if a dog causes injury to a person or damages property, the owner is held accountable, regardless of whether the dog had ever shown aggression before. Gone are the days of the “one-bite rule,” which often let negligent owners off the hook until after someone was harmed. In Massachusetts, if you’re injured by a dog, you don’t have to prove the owner knew their pet was dangerous—because frankly, the law assumes dog owners should be responsible for their pets at all times.

The statute leaves little room for ambiguity: dog owners are liable for the injuries their dogs cause. The only exceptions apply to trespassers, those committing another tort, or individuals who were actively “teasing, tormenting, or abusing” the dog at the time of the injury.

For victims, this strict liability framework simplifies the process of seeking justice. It eliminates the often-insurmountable burden of proving the owner’s prior knowledge of the dog’s aggression, shifting the focus to the harm suffered and the dog’s role in causing it. This approach allows victims to recover medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for their pain and suffering.

Product Liability Law in Massachusetts

Claims relating to defective or dangerous products that cause injury or harm to consumers are governed by Massachusetts product liability law. The applicable law for product liability claims in Massachusetts is derived from a combination of both case law and statutory law. This summary provides an very brief overview of Massachusetts product liability law.

Under Massachusetts law, a manufacturer or seller of a product can be held liable if that product is defective and that defect causes injuries or harm. Massachusetts law acknowledges the three basic types of product defects as identified in the Restatement of Torts:

1. Manufacturing Defects: a manufacturing defect is something that occurs during the assembly process rending the product defective and potentially dangerous.
2. Design Defects: a design defect occurs when the product is manufactured correctly, but there is something inherent in its design that makes it defective and dangerous (e.g., an ingredient that causes cancer).
3. Failure to Warn: a product can be considered defective if it is sold without proper warnings or instructions that enable users to avoid potential risks.

Massachusetts Mass Tort Claims

There are many nationwide mass torts or “class actions” that involve countless Massachusetts residents as prsopective plaintiffs, including claims our law firm is handling across the country such as:

• Roundup Cancer Lawsuit: The chemical used in the popular weedkiller Roundup has been shown to cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Thousands of people who used Roundup have filed product liability lawsuits and billions in settlement compensation has been paid.  These are good cases but we do not see a lot of them in Massachusetts.
• Bard PowerPort Lawsuits: The Bard PowerPort is a port catheter device implanted to allow for regular IV connections. The device has design flaws causing it to fracture and create serious complications.
• Uber Sex Abuse Lawsuits: All lawsuits alleging that Uber drivers sexually assaulted or abused rideshare passengers have been consolidated into a class action MDL. Victims of Uber driver sexual abuse can now bring claims directly in the MDL.
• Hair relaxer lawsuit: recent evidence has shown that long-term use of chemical hair relaxer products (most commonly used by African American women) can cause uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids, and other conditions. This has prompted hundreds of women to file hair relaxer lawsuits.

Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Laws

Any lawsuit alleging professional negligence against a licensed doctor, nurse, hospital or other licensed healthcare provider in Massachusetts is subject to a special set of rules and laws applicable to medical malpractice cases.

3 Years for Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Claims

Medical malpractice lawsuits in Massachusetts are subject to the same 3-year statute of limitations that applies to general tort claims. The 3-years begins from the date of the injury or, if the malpractice is not reasonably obvious, then the discovery rule applies and the 3-years does not begin to run until the malpractice is known or should have been known.

7-Year Statute of Repose for Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Claims

In Massachusetts, medical malpractice lawsuits are subject to a statute of repose law that sets a maximum limit on how long a plaintiff has to file a claim. The Massachusetts statute of repose for medical malpractice cases is 7-years from the date of the injury. This 7-year limit applies regardless of when the statute of limitations might expire under the discovery rule. Mass. G.L. c. 231, § 60D.

Damages Cap in Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Claims

Massachusetts has a statute that imposes a maximum cap on the amount of non-economic damages (i.e., damages for mental pain & suffering) in medical malpractice cases. Mass. G.L c. 231, § 60H. The law states that juries may not award more than $500,000 for “pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment and other items of general damages.” There is, however, an exception to this cap that allows more than $500k to be awarded if the jury finds that there is “substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances.”

Review By Malpractice Panel Required Before Filing Lawsuit

Massachusetts law requires all prospective plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits to submit their claims for review by a malpractice tribunal prior to filing a lawsuit in court. The tribunal reviews the facts of the case and the plaintiff’s claims and issues an advisory opinion as to whether the claims have any merit. If the advisory opinion finds that there is evidence of malpractice, it can be used in court by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff is unsuccessful at the tribunal, they are required to post a $6,000 bond which will be forfeited if the case is lost. G. L. c. 231, § 60B

Hiring a Massachusetts Personal Injury Lawyer

Our firm handles serious injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Massachusetts by working with local partner firms. We compensate our Massachusetts lawyers out of our own attorneys’ fees so it doesn’t cost you anything to have two law firms instead of one. And you only owe a fee if you get settlement compensation or a jury payout for you.

If you were hurt and believe you have a potential civil tort claim, click here for a free no-obligation consultation or call us today at 800-553-8082 or get a free consultation online.