Smith v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
462 Mass. 370
| Mass. | 2012Background
- MBTA amendments in 2009 made MBTA a public employer under G. L. c. 258, §§ 1-14 and G. L. c. 161A § 38 as amended; question whether retroactive application applies to pre-November 1, 2009 claims.
- Plaintiff sustained a 2005 motor-vehicle collision with MBTA bus; suit filed October 2005 against MBTA and driver.
- Judgment entered September 30, 2009 for plaintiff with damages and interest; MBTA sought relief from interest and costs after amendments.
- MBTA became a public employer on November 1, 2009; public employers are immune from interest and costs under the amended act.
- Trial court denied relief; Appeals Court affirmed; MBTA sought Supreme Judicial Court review.
- Court held the 2009 amendments do not apply retroactively to pre-November 1, 2009 claims; prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs accruing before November 1, 2009 may be recovered; interest after November 1, 2009 accrues at zero percent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 amendments retroactively apply to pre‑Nov. 1, 2009 claims. | MBTA’s new status should apply retroactively. | Amendments should be retroactive to protect state budget. | No retroactive application. |
| Whether prejudgment interest and costs accruing before November 1, 2009 are recoverable. | Rights accrued before November 1, 2009 include interest and costs. | Public-employer status precludes such interest/costs. | Plaintiff entitled to interest and costs accrued before November 1, 2009. |
| Whether interest accruing on and after November 1, 2009 is recoverable. | Interest should accrue post-November 1, 2009. | No interest post-November 1, 2009. | No interest for delay after November 1, 2009. |
| How to treat retroactivity given substantive-rights vs. procedural-remedies distinction. | Amendments affect substantive rights; should apply retroactively. | Presumption against retroactivity stands; no clear intent for retroactive application. | Amendments not retroactive; substantive rights limited but not retroactively diminished. |
| What governs calculation and timing of interest and costs overall. | Interest runs from injury date; pre- and post-judgment distinction. | Interest runs from commencement; post-Nov. 1 changes apply prospectively. | Interest up to Nov. 1, 2009, recoverable; post-Nov. 1, 2009, no entitlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309 (Mass. 1993) (substantive vs. procedural retroactivity; measure of liability)
- Nunez, 460 Mass. 511 (Mass. 2011) (retrospective-legislation presumption and exceptions)
- Trinity Church in Boston v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 405 Mass. 682 (Mass. 1989) (interest as compensation for delay; retroactivity rule guidance)
- Porter v. Clerk of the Superior Court, 368 Mass. 116 (Mass. 1975) (timing of prejudgment interest; continuation post-judgment)
- Onofrio v. Department of Mental Health, 411 Mass. 657 (Mass. 1992) (sovereign immunity; public-employer constraints on liability)
- Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 391 Mass. 815 (Mass. 1984) (MBTA liability for interest and costs under prior waiver)
- Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Dep’t, 458 Mass. 596 (Mass. 2010) (sovereign-consent to suit; limits on liability)
- DeRoche v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2006) (agency immunity and statutory framework)