A man died at Forest Hills Station over the weekend after falling onto the electrified third rail. According to Transit Police, he and a 19-year-old woman had walked into the station carrying flags from Caribbean countries. She lost her balance near the yellow warning strip and fell on the platform. He went to help her, fell into the right-of-way, and landed on the third rail. He was pronounced dead. She was taken to a hospital in critical condition.
Transit Police said foul play is not suspected, calling it “a horrific tragedy.”
Nothing here is about that case, and no one should draw conclusions about it from a general explainer. But it raises a question people ask after every serious injury on the T, and the answer is genuinely unusual: claims against the MBTA follow rules that differ from claims against almost any other defendant in Massachusetts, and the most common way people lose is by missing a step nobody told them about.
The MBTA is a public employer, and only since 2009
This matters because it determines everything else.
The MBTA was created in the 1960s as a “body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the commonwealth,” taking over from failing private street railway companies. When the Legislature passed the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act in 1978, it excluded the MBTA from the definition of a public employer. For three decades the T was liable much as a private transit company would be.
That changed in November 2009. In St. 2009, c. 25, the Legislature added the MBTA to the list of public employers covered by the Tort Claims Act, struck the second paragraph of its enabling statute, and removed the language making it liable “to the same extent as a private street railway company.”
The Appeals Court described the effect in Harrison v. MBTA, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 659 (2022): the amendments left “no doubt as to the MBTA’s status as a State entity and ‘public employer.'”
So today, a claim against the T runs through G.L. c. 258, the Tort Claims Act.
The step that ends most cases
Before you can sue a public employer in Massachusetts, you must first present the claim in writing. Under G.L. c. 258 § 4, the claim must be presented to the public employer’s “executive officer”, defined by statute as its “nominal chief executive officer or board”, within two years after the cause of action arose.
Two years sounds like plenty of time. The trap is not the deadline. It is the address.
In Coren-Hall v. MBTA, decided by the Appeals Court in 2017, a woman was injured when an MBTA bus struck a vehicle she was getting into. She mailed notice of her claim to the MBTA’s Claims Department, on time. She never sent it to the executive officer.
The trial judge denied the MBTA’s motion, reasoning that the executive officer had actual notice of the claim anyway. The Appeals Court reversed, holding the motion should have been allowed. Actual knowledge was not a substitute for presentment to the right person.
The court published that decision specifically to give guidance to litigants, which tells you how often the mistake is made.
The practical lesson is unglamorous and it is the single most useful thing in this article: a letter to the claims department, the customer service line, or the station manager does not satisfy the statute. It goes to the executive officer.
One narrow escape hatch
Inadequate presentment is an affirmative defense, and a defendant can waive it by pleading it badly.
In Theisz v. MBTA, the Supreme Judicial Court held in 2018 that the MBTA had waived the defense by failing to plead it with the specificity and particularity the rules require. The Court also noted the failure may have prejudiced the plaintiff, because had the MBTA pleaded properly, he would still have had time to cure.
That is a thin reed to rely on. It is a reason cases sometimes survive, not a reason to be casual about presentment.
Damages are capped at $100,000
Under G.L. c. 258 § 2, liability against a public employer is capped at $100,000.
That figure applies regardless of how catastrophic the harm is. A wrongful death claim and a broken ankle are subject to the same ceiling. It has not been raised in decades.
This is the hardest thing to explain to a family, and it is why the identity of the defendant matters so much in these cases. A claim against a private contractor working in a station, or against another driver, or against a property owner, is not subject to the cap. A claim against the T is.
What the T is and is not immune from
The Tort Claims Act carries immunities that have no private-sector equivalent, and one of them was narrowed in a decision this year.
Section 10(j) generally shields a public employer from liability for harm “directly caused” by someone else, including a third party’s criminal act. It is a broad provision and it defeats a great many claims.
In Theisz v. MBTA, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court on March 14, 2025, the Court held that § 10(j) provides no protection to the MBTA for its own misfeasance. The distinction the Court drew is between a public employer that merely failed to prevent someone else’s harm, which is protected, and one whose own affirmative act created the condition that led to the harm, which is not.
Section 10(c) is a separate problem: it immunizes public employers from claims arising out of intentional torts, which is why claims based on an assault are often reframed as negligent hiring, training, or supervision.
What this means in practice
Three things, for anyone hurt on the T or trying to help a family member who was.
Identify the executive officer and present in writing. Not the claims department. The statutory deadline runs from when the cause of action arose, and it is the step most commonly missed.
Do not assume the T is the only defendant. Contractors, maintenance vendors, property owners, and other drivers are not public employers and are not protected by the cap or the presentment requirement. Which entity did what is often the difference between a capped claim and an uncapped one.
Move quickly on evidence. Station video, maintenance records, and staffing logs are held by the entity you may end up suing, and retention periods are finite.
None of this is legal advice about any particular case, and the deadlines that govern filing suit are separate from the presentment deadline. Anyone considering a claim should talk to a lawyer well before the two-year mark rather than near it.
Common questions
Can you sue the MBTA in Massachusetts?
Yes, but as a public employer under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, which imposes a written presentment requirement, statutory immunities, and a damages cap. The MBTA has been covered by the Act since November 2009.
What is presentment?
A written notice of the claim that must be delivered to the public employer’s executive officer, meaning its nominal chief executive officer or board, within two years after the cause of action arose. Sending it to a claims department does not satisfy the statute, as the Appeals Court held in Coren-Hall v. MBTA.
Is there a cap on damages against the MBTA?
Yes. G.L. c. 258 § 2 caps liability against a public employer at $100,000, regardless of the severity of the injury.
Is the MBTA immune when a third party causes the harm?
Often, under G.L. c. 258 § 10(j). But the Supreme Judicial Court held in March 2025 that § 10(j) gives the MBTA no protection for its own misfeasance, as opposed to a failure to prevent someone else’s act.
Does the cap apply to everyone involved?
No. It applies to public employers. Private contractors, vendors, property owners, and other motorists are not covered by the Tort Claims Act and are not subject to the cap.
Statutory framework from G.L. c. 258 and G.L. c. 161A. Case law from Harrison v. MBTA, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 659 (2022); Coren-Hall v. MBTA (Mass. App. Ct. 2017); and Theisz v. MBTA (SJC 2018 and SJC-13624, March 14, 2025). Incident details from Transit Police statements as reported by WHDH, WCVB, and CBS Boston. This is general legal information, not legal advice, and nothing here expresses any view about liability in the Forest Hills incident.