Motorcycle Accidents Attorneys Serving Lowell Residents

How motorcycle accidents cases proceed under Massachusetts law

A Massachusetts motorcycle claim does not run through the same insurance layer a car claim does. A motorcycle policy provides no personal injury protection to the rider or a passenger on the bike, even though the same policy does provide PIP to a pedestrian the motorcycle strikes. Because a Lowell rider funds the no-fault system through a required policy but is excluded from its central benefit, the Supreme Judicial Court held in Murphy v. Bohn, 377 Mass. 544 (1979), that the pain-and-suffering restriction in M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 6D does not limit the rider's recovery. That statute otherwise bars a claim for pain and suffering unless medical bills exceed two thousand dollars or the injury falls into one of five listed categories. The same absence of PIP removes the tort exemption in M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 34M, which shields an at-fault driver only to the extent the injured person is entitled to PIP benefits; a rider with no PIP entitlement produces an exemption of zero. The trade is real: nothing pays a Middlesex County rider's medical bills while the claim is pending, so a health plan is the first payer.

The Murphy rule is narrower than it first sounds. The Appeals Court held in Prouty v. Brown, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 992 (1986), that the exemption from the threshold turns on having contributed to the Massachusetts no-fault system, not on riding a motorcycle, so a Lowell rider whose bike is registered and insured out of state can still be held to the ordinary sec. 6D threshold. Helmets are required for every rider and passenger. M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7 requires protective head gear meeting the registrar's standards, with a narrow exception for an adult rider in a permitted public parade. A missing helmet does not end a claim: under M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85, violating a safety statute is evidence of a plaintiff's negligence, not an automatic bar, and a Middlesex County rider still recovers, reduced by their own share of fault, unless that share exceeds fifty percent.

A rider on a motorcycle learner's permit carries two statutory restrictions that a Lowell insurer will look for after a crash. M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 8B bars a permit holder from carrying any passenger and from operating a motorcycle on any way after sunset or before sunrise; both restrictions apply from the day the permit issues and do not soften with experience. A violation of either is treated the same way a helmet violation is, as evidence of negligence under sec. 85 rather than a defense that defeats the claim outright. A Middlesex County crash causing injury, death, or more than one thousand dollars in property damage also triggers a written report to the registrar within five days under M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 26. Suit against the at-fault driver must be brought within three years of the crash under M.G.L. c. 260, sec. 2A.

Massachusetts statutes and case law

• M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 6D. Ordinarily bars a claim for pain and suffering in a motor vehicle case unless medical expenses exceed two thousand dollars or the injury falls into one of five listed categories; a Massachusetts-insured motorcyclist's recovery is unimpaired by this restriction under Murphy v. Bohn.
• M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 34M. Exempts an at-fault driver from tort liability only to the extent the injured party is entitled to PIP benefits; because a motorcycle rider has no PIP entitlement, the exemption does not protect the driver against the rider's claim.
• M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7. Requires every motorcycle rider and passenger to wear protective head gear meeting the registrar's standards, with a narrow exception for an adult rider in a permitted public parade.
• M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85. Massachusetts's comparative-negligence rule: a plaintiff's violation of a statute, such as the helmet law or a learner's permit restriction, is evidence of negligence, not an automatic bar; recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's own share of fault and barred only above fifty percent.
• M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 8B. Bars a motorcycle learner's permit holder from carrying any passenger and from operating a motorcycle on any way after sunset or before sunrise, from the day the permit is issued.
• M.G.L. c. 260, sec. 2A. Sets the three-year deadline to bring a Massachusetts tort action, including a motorcycle accident claim.
• M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 26. Requires a written report to the registrar within five days of a crash causing injury, death, or more than one thousand dollars in property damage.

Common case patterns in Lowell

1. A Lowell rider struck by a driver who failed to yield, with medical bills under two thousand dollars, where full pain-and-suffering damages remain available under Murphy v. Bohn because the motorcycle was Massachusetts-insured.
2. A Middlesex County rider hurt while not wearing a helmet, where the missing helmet is evidence of negligence under sec. 85 rather than an automatic bar to recovery.
3. A Lowell rider whose motorcycle is registered and insured outside Massachusetts, where Prouty v. Brown may hold the claim to the ordinary sec. 6D threshold instead of the Murphy exception.
4. A Lowell rider on a learner's permit who was carrying a passenger or riding after dark at the time of the crash, where the permit violation is weighed as sec. 85 evidence rather than a defense that ends the claim.
5. A Middlesex County crash where the at-fault driver's insurer tries to apply the ordinary PIP-based tort exemption under sec. 34M to a motorcyclist who has no PIP entitlement at all.

Typical timeline

1. Immediately after a Lowell crash, medical treatment runs through the rider's own health plan rather than PIP, since no PIP benefit reaches the rider, and any crash causing injury, death or more than one thousand dollars in damage triggers the five-day report to the registrar under sec. 26.
2. Evaluating the claim starts with where the motorcycle was registered and insured, which decides whether Murphy v. Bohn or Prouty v. Brown controls the sec. 6D threshold question. Helmet use and license or permit status are reviewed as sec. 85 comparative-negligence evidence, not as an automatic defense, for a Middlesex County rider.
3. Settlement or suit follows within the three-year window set by sec. 2A. For a Massachusetts-insured rider, the claim is valued without the ordinary two-thousand-dollar threshold standing in front of pain-and-suffering damages.

What can be recovered

• Medical expenses, recoverable from the at-fault driver since no PIP absorbs the first layer for a rider.
• Lost income.
• Pain and suffering, without needing to clear the ordinary sec. 6D threshold, for a Massachusetts-insured rider under Murphy v. Bohn.
• A reduced but not barred recovery where the rider's own share of fault is fifty percent or less, under the comparative-negligence rule in sec. 85.
• Full pain-and-suffering damages even where the rider was not wearing a helmet or was riding on a learner's permit, subject to that same comparative-negligence reduction rather than an outright bar.

Key terms

Murphy v. Bohn

The 1979 case holding that a motorcycle rider, who gets no PIP, does not need to clear the $2,000 tort threshold to sue for pain and suffering.

Helmet requirement

The Massachusetts rule under M.G.L. c. 90 sec. 7 that every rider and passenger must wear a helmet.

Comparative negligence

The rule under which a helmet violation is evidence of negligence, not an automatic bar to recovery.

Lane splitting

Riding between lanes of traffic, a practice not authorized under Massachusetts motor-vehicle law.

Auto accident PIP claim vs. motorcycle claim

More questions from Lowell residents

• Do I have to reach the $2,000 medical-bill threshold to sue for pain and suffering after a Massachusetts motorcycle crash?

  Generally no, if the motorcycle was registered and insured in Massachusetts. In Murphy v. Bohn, 377 Mass. 544 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a Massachusetts motorcyclist's right to recover is unimpaired by the pain-and-suffering restriction in M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 6D, because the rider funds the no-fault system but is excluded from PIP while riding.

• Does the Murphy v. Bohn rule protect a rider insured outside Massachusetts?

  Not automatically. In Prouty v. Brown, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 992 (1986), the Appeals Court explained that Murphy turns on having contributed to the Massachusetts no-fault system, not on being a motorcyclist. A rider insured in another state can be held to the ordinary sec. 6D threshold.

• Are helmets required in Massachusetts, and does not wearing one end my claim?

  Helmets are required for every rider and passenger under M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7, with a narrow parade exception. A violation does not end the claim by itself: under M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85, it is evidence of the rider's own negligence, reducing recovery in proportion to fault rather than barring it outright, unless that fault exceeds fifty percent.

• What if I was riding on a motorcycle learner's permit when the crash happened?

  M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 8B bars a permit holder from carrying a passenger or riding after sunset or before sunrise. A violation of either restriction is evaluated as sec. 85 evidence of negligence, which can reduce a recovery, not as a rule that defeats the claim.

• How long do I have to bring a Massachusetts motorcycle accident claim?

  Three years. M.G.L. c. 260, sec. 2A requires a tort action to be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. A separate and much shorter deadline applies to the crash report itself: M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 26 requires a written report to the registrar within five days where the crash causes injury, death, or more than one thousand dollars in property damage.