Coren-Hall v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-015-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-300                                        Appeals Court   ALEXIS D. COREN-HALL[1]  vs.  MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.     No. 16-P-300.   Suffolk.     December 13, 2016. – February 23, 2017.   Present:  Milkey, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Presentment of claim under Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Interlocutory appeal, Summary judgment.  Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.  Notice, Claim under Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.  Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, General manager.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 16, 2012.   The case was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.   Amy Bratskeir (Jonathan P. Feltner also present) for the defendant. Albert E. Grady for the plaintiff.     SACKS, J.  The defendant, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), appeals from a Superior Court order denying its renewed motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Alexis D. Coren-Hall’s tort claim under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258.  The MBTA’s motion asserted that Coren-Hall had failed to make presentment of her claim to the MBTA’s “executive officer,” as required by G. L. c. 258, § 4.  The judge denied the motion on the ground that, although Coren-Hall had not made presentment to the MBTA’s executive officer, the executive officer nevertheless had “actual notice” of the claim.  We conclude that the MBTA’s motion should have been allowed.[2] Background.  Coren-Hall alleged that on May 10, 2010, she was injured when a negligently driven MBTA bus struck a vehicle that she was in the process of entering.  After she filed suit on May 16, 2012, the MBTA’s answer asserted, as an affirmative defense, that she had failed to make proper presentment of her claim as required by G. L. c. 258, § 4.  In July, 2015, the MBTA filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on that basis.[3]  Under G. L. c. 258, § 4, a tort claim against a public employer must be presented to its “executive officer,” defined in G. L. c. 258, § 1, inserted by St. 1978, c. 512, § 15, as its “nominal chief executive officer or board,”[4] within two years after the cause of action arose.  The MBTA’s motion asserted that, although Coren-Hall had timely mailed notice of her claim to the MBTA “Claims Department,” she had never sent such notice to the executive officer.  The judge denied the MBTA’s motion, and this appeal followed.[5] Discussion.  The parties’ […]

Read more...