Harrison v. Town of Mattapoisett
78 Mass. App. Ct. 367
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Roberta Harrison sues the towns of Mattapoisett, Fairhaven and Acushnet and the Massachusetts Department of State Police for injuries from a high-speed pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
- Plaintiff alleges negligent participation in the chase and negligent training/supervision of officers involved.
- Summary judgments: Acushnet and State Police immune under the public duty rule (G. L. c. 258, § 10(f)) as not the original cause; Department later granted summary judgment for lack of participation evidence.
- Factual sequence: Acushnet officer observes suspect Lessa; Mattapoisett officer pursues; Fairhaven joins; chase proceeds on 1-195 with high speeds and dangerous driving; pursuit terminated shortly before the Weld Street ramp; collision occurs seconds later.
- Lessa had multiple warrants; speeds up to 100 mph; multiple marked police vehicles participate before the pursuit is called off.
- Court holds Mattapoisett and Fairhaven’s affirmative pursuit actions could be the original cause and thus not immune, while Acushnet and the Department remain immune; issues of causation and foreseeability are for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Acushnet and State Police are immune under § 10(f). | Harrison argues defendants’ involvement contributed to the harm and immunity should not apply. | Acushnet and Department contend no original cause due to lack of participation or causation. | Acushnet and Department immune under § 10(f). |
| Whether Mattapoisett and Fairhaven’s high-speed pursuit created the condition causing the harm. | Their pursuit materially contributed to Lessa’s flight and the resulting collision. | Pursuit neither created the condition nor caused the crash; immune status remains. | Mattapoisett and Fairhaven not immune; material contribution found. |
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact on negligence and causation for the towns’ officers. | Continuing the chase foreseeably caused the collision, raising triable issues. | Negligence, causation, and foreseeability are not for jury given analysis or intervening conduct. | There are genuine issues of material fact as to foreseeability and causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 312 (2002) (defines original cause and material contribution under § 10(f))
- Jacome v. Commonwealth, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 486 (2002) (original cause requires an affirmative act creating the condition)
- Whittaker v. Saraceno, 418 Mass. 196 (1994) (foreseeability as a criterion for duty and proximate cause)
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47 (1983) (summary judgment generally inappropriate for negligence issues)
- Anagnos v. Hultgren, 445 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Mass. 2006) (federal court on § 10(f) immunity considerations)
- Ward v. City of Boston, 367 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. Mass. 2005) (police pursuit cases with different outcomes on immunity)