Murray v. Town of Hudson, 34 N.E.3d 728

Murray, visiting Milford High School, was injured warming up in the Hudson bullpen during a town-hosted interscholastic baseball game at Riverside Park.
The bullpen was a rough wooden enclosure; the fall occurred when Murray’s left foot struck a timber, causing a severe knee injury requiring surgeries.
Hudson maintains the bullpen and the field; the area was believed inherently dangerous and poorly lit, with claims of narrow width and wooden timbers enclosing the mound.
Murray sent a §4 presentment letter to Hudson detailing negligence and willful/wanton conduct, including the bullpen’s dangerous design, lighting, and maintenance, demanding $100,000.
The trial court granted summary judgment, relying on the recreational use statute (G. L. c. 21, § 17C) to bar negligence liability and finding no special relationship with Murray as a visiting student.
This court held that the town may be liable for negligence despite § 17C because inviting Milford to play creates a duty to provide a reasonably safe field for visiting student-athletes, and addressed presentment and discretionary function considerations for the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recreational use statute shields the town from negligence liability	Murray	Hudson	No; recreation statute does not bar liability to visiting student-athletes full duty remains
Whether presentment satisfied the act's § 4 requirement	Murray	Hudson	Presentment adequate; content allowed investigation into liability under the act
Whether negligent design vs. negligent maintenance theories are viable	Murray	Hudson	Both theories potentially viable; not limited by presentment or immunity at summary judgment
Whether the discretionary function exception governs design-based liability	Murray	Hudson	Cannot be resolved until trial; discretionary function exception may apply depending on theory

Ali v. Boston, 441 Mass. 233 (2004) (recreational use statute creates limited duty for landowners)
Kavanagh v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 440 Mass. 195 (2003) (special relationship with own students; liability for third-party conduct not extended to visiting players)
McAllister v. Boston Hous. Auth., 429 Mass. 300 (1999) (adequacy of presentment letters; scope of notice)
Shapiro v. Worcester, 464 Mass. 261 (2013) (strict presentment requirements under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act)
Estate of Gavin v. Tewksbury State Hosp., 468 Mass. 123 (2014) (presentment notice and investigations under MTCA)
Morales v. Johnston, 895 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2006) (visiting athlete protection despite recreational immunity)