## Facts

- Chester J. Saharceski and Joseph C. Marcure, Sr. were Massachusetts residents employed by a Massachusetts corporation.
- Saharceski managed the employer’s Turners Falls, Massachusetts retail store; Marcure worked as a chauffeur.
- Both were hired in Massachusetts; the employer’s principal offices were in Massachusetts, and it carried Massachusetts workers’ compensation insurance.
- On June 1, 1970, while on company business, Saharceski was a passenger in a company-owned vehicle registered in Massachusetts as it traveled through Connecticut intending to pass through without stopping.
- In Connecticut, Marcure negligently rear-ended a vehicle stopped in the passing lane on the Connecticut Turnpike, injuring Saharceski.
- Saharceski received Massachusetts workers’ compensation benefits for the injury.
- Saharceski later sued Marcure in Massachusetts for negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts or Connecticut substantive law governs a Massachusetts employee’s tort claim against a co-employee for an injury occurring in Connecticut during Massachusetts employment.
2. If Massachusetts law governs, whether the workers’ compensation exclusivity scheme bars a negligence action against a co-employee acting within the course of employment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts law governed the co-employee tort claim despite the Connecticut location of the accident.
- Applying Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, the court held the claim against the co-employee was barred because compensation was available and both employees were acting within the scope of employment.
- The court affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendant, setting aside the jury verdict for the plaintiff.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, when workers’ compensation benefits are available under G.L. c. 152, an employee injured in the course of employment by a co-employee’s negligence may not recover from that co-employee if the co-employee was also acting in the course of employment.
- In tort conflicts involving workplace injuries, Massachusetts applies an interest-and-contacts analysis that gives substantial weight to the employment relationship, the compensation system providing benefits, and the parties’ Massachusetts-based expectations.
- The place of injury may be treated as fortuitous where the parties and employer have no meaningful connection to the state of the accident other than travel through it, and applying that state’s tort rule would defeat Massachusetts workers’ compensation immunity.

## Conclusion

Because the employment relationship and compensation system were centered in Massachusetts and the Connecticut accident location was incidental to Massachusetts work travel, Massachusetts workers’ compensation exclusivity and co-employee immunity controlled and barred the plaintiff’s negligence action, making JNOV for the defendant proper.


Saharceski v. Marcure, 373 Mass. 304, 366 N.E.2d 1245 (1977)