Massachusetts Construction Accident FAQs

Yes. Workers' comp bars most lawsuits against your own employer (M.G.L. c. 152, § 24), and co-workers acting in the course of the job generally share that protection. But M.G.L. c. 152, § 15 preserves your right to sue another party that is legally responsible for the injury. You can collect comp and bring that lawsuit at the same time.

On a Boston job site, the other parties can include:

• The general contractor or construction manager.
• Other subcontractors working on the site.
• The property owner or developer.
• The manufacturer, seller, or rental company for a defective lift, saw, or scaffold component.
• A driver or trucking company whose vehicle struck you in a work zone.

Not every company on the site is automatically a "third party." A company that borrowed you as a worker, or that stands in your employer's shoes under the comp statute, may share its immunity. The contracts and payroll records usually answer that question. Our page on third-party liability explains the basic rule.

When the general contractor kept control over the part of the work that caused the injury, including its safety practices, and failed to use reasonable care in exercising that control. Massachusetts follows the retained-control rule of Corsetti v. Stone Co., 396 Mass. 1 (1985), which draws on § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The Supreme Judicial Court applied that rule in Contento Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc. (SJC-13878, August 17, 2026). A worker employed by a roofing subcontractor fell from a roof. The general contractor delivered materials and visited briefly, but the subcontractor decided how to use the safety lines and harnesses. The court held the general contractor owed no duty, and said a general contractual right to direct the work is not enough by itself. It also held that the general contractor's name on the building permit, and the State Building Code, did not create a duty that otherwise did not exist.

The court also declined to recognize a negligent-hiring claim against a general contractor when three things are true: it did not retain or exercise control, the injured worker is the subcontractor's own employee, and the injury came from the subcontractor's own work. That makes the paper trail important: the prime contract and subcontract, the site safety plan, safety meeting records, and who actually decided how workers tied off.

Sometimes, on two different theories. An owner that keeps control over part of the work can be liable under the same retained-control rule. An owner can also be responsible for a dangerous condition of the property itself, such as a hidden hole or a failing structure, separate from how the contractor did its work.

In Cheschi v. Boston Edison Co., 39 Mass. App. Ct. 133 (1995), a contractor's employee was hurt at a power plant. The jury was told the owner could be liable if it kept control of part of the work and failed to use reasonable care, and it found for the owner. An owner who hands the whole project to a general contractor and stays away is harder to reach. Our work accident page covers other workplace settings.

The manufacturer can be sued if a lift, nail gun, table saw, trench box, or scaffold part was badly designed, badly made, or sold without adequate warnings. Depending on the facts, the seller, distributor, rental company, or a company that maintained or modified the equipment may be responsible too.

Your employer usually cannot be sued, but those companies can. Keep the equipment in its post-accident condition if at all possible, and write down the make, model, and serial number before anyone repairs it. Massachusetts handles most defect claims as breach of warranty claims, which our product liability FAQs explain.

No. In Massachusetts, a violation of a safety statute or regulation is evidence of negligence that a jury may consider, not automatic liability (Perry v. Medeiros, 369 Mass. 836 (1976)). In Cheschi, the Appeals Court approved an instruction letting the jury weigh violations of applicable statutes and codes as evidence of negligence.

Two limits matter. First, the defendant has to owe you a duty before a regulation can be used against it. The Suquilanda court said so directly about building code violations. Second, OSHA usually cites the employer, and a citation against your employer does not show that the general contractor or owner did anything wrong. OSHA standards help most in showing what safe practice required. Read more about construction site falls, where OSHA fall rules come up most.

Federal OSHA rules set the baseline. In general, construction workers on an unprotected side or edge 6 feet or more above a lower level must be protected by guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems (29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(1)), and workers on a scaffold more than 10 feet up must have fall protection (29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(1)). Both rules have task-specific exceptions.

Massachusetts has no statute like New York's "scaffold law" that makes owners and contractors automatically liable for height-related falls. A fall case here rests on negligence, premises, or product theories. Expect the defense to argue that the worker failed to tie off or ignored training. Under M.G.L. c. 231, § 85, your share of fault reduces the award, and you recover nothing only if your fault is greater than that of the defendants combined. See our page on scaffolding accidents.

A third-party lawsuit can recover full damages, which workers' comp never pays. Comp covers medical bills and a percentage of lost wages. A negligence claim can recover:

• All lost wages and lost future earning capacity, not a percentage.
• Pain and suffering, including emotional distress.
• Loss of enjoyment of life and permanent scarring.

A spouse, and in some cases a child, may also have a loss of consortium claim. Our damages page explains how each category is measured.

Yes, in part. Under M.G.L. c. 152, § 15, the comp insurer has a lien on a third-party recovery for the benefits it paid, and any excess goes to you. The insurer can also take a credit against future comp benefits.

The Supreme Judicial Court limited that lien in DiCarlo v. Suffolk Construction Co., 473 Mass. 624 (2016). The lien does not reach damages fairly allocated to pain and suffering, because comp never paid for pain and suffering. A settlement must be approved by the DIA, the reviewing board, or the court after a hearing where the insurer can be heard, so the allocation must be supported by the facts. Learn more about third-party claims.

Generally, three years from the injury (M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A). Claims about a defect in the design, planning, construction, or general administration of an improvement to real property face an extra limit. Under M.G.L. c. 260, § 2B, those claims cannot be brought more than six years after the earlier of the improvement opening to use, or its substantial completion and the owner taking possession.

That six-year statute of repose can bar a claim before the injury even happens. It matters when a worker is hurt by a collapsing structure, a defective railing, or a design flaw in an older building.

The comp insurer has its own rights. Once seven months have passed since the injury and it has paid benefits, it can bring the third-party case itself (c. 152, § 15), which takes some control away from you. Talk to us soon after an injury so the right deadline is identified.

The general contractor's insurer may have to pay your benefits. Under M.G.L. c. 152, § 18, when an insured contractor hires a subcontractor to do part of its work, the contractor's insurer can be required to pay the compensation the subcontractor's workers would have received. The statute has conditions, and it does not reach every job that is merely incidental to the contractor's business.

If § 18 does not apply, the state's Workers' Compensation Trust Fund may pay approved claims against an uninsured employer. Our workers' compensation FAQs explain the Trust Fund and how comp benefits are calculated.

Yes. The DIA Reviewing Board held in Medellin v. Cashman KPA (Board No. 033243-00, 2003) that a worker's undocumented status "does not bar him/her from receiving workers' compensation benefits otherwise due." Immigration status also does not erase a negligence claim against a third party.

Status can come up in how some damages are argued, especially future lost earnings, and that area of law is less settled. Reach out and we can talk through the options in your situation.