A driver from another state hits you on a Massachusetts highway and then goes home. A company headquartered halfway across the country sells a defective product that injures you here. An online seller ships you something that catches fire. In each case the wrongdoer is out of state, and the first thing their lawyer says is that you cannot sue them in Massachusetts at all. Whether that is true turns on long-arm jurisdiction — the power of a Massachusetts court to reach a defendant who lives or operates somewhere else — and in many injury cases, that power is broader than the out-of-state defendant would like you to believe. A confident-sounding jurisdictional objection is often the first thing a distant defendant tries, precisely because it can end the case without ever reaching the merits.
The question matters because it decides where you can bring your case. Forcing an injured Massachusetts resident to travel to a distant state to sue is a heavy burden, and often an impractical one. Massachusetts has a long-arm statute that authorizes its courts to exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in specific situations, and the Constitution’s due-process guarantee sets the outer limit. Between the two, a defendant who caused harm in Massachusetts, did business here, or reached into the state can frequently be sued right here, close to home. The Commonwealth does not lightly send its injured residents out of state to seek justice.
What follows is how long-arm jurisdiction works in Massachusetts: suing an out-of-state driver or company, reaching online sellers and products shipped into the state, and the minimum-contacts and due-process limits. This is general information, not advice about a specific case. Because a related question — which state’s law applies once you are in a Massachusetts court — often arises alongside jurisdiction, our discussion of whose law governs an out-of-state crash is a useful companion. Jurisdiction decides where the case is heard; choice of law decides which state’s rules apply once it is there.
Can you sue an out-of-state defendant in Massachusetts?
The answer runs through a two-step analysis: the long-arm statute must authorize jurisdiction, and exercising it must satisfy constitutional due process.
The Massachusetts long-arm statute
Massachusetts’s long-arm statute, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 223A, section 3, lets a court exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state person as to a claim arising from specified conduct — among them, transacting business in the Commonwealth, contracting to supply goods or services here, causing tortious injury by an act or omission in Massachusetts, and causing tortious injury in Massachusetts by conduct elsewhere where the defendant regularly does business, engages in a persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods or services in the state. The statute is the first gate: if the defendant’s conduct fits one of these categories and the claim arises from it, the statute authorizes jurisdiction. For an injury caused here, the tortious-injury provisions are usually the natural fit. The statute was written with exactly this kind of case in mind.
The two-step test
Satisfying the statute is necessary but not sufficient; the exercise of jurisdiction must also comport with constitutional due process. So the analysis has two steps: first, does the long-arm statute reach the defendant, and second, does the defendant have the constitutionally required minimum contacts with Massachusetts such that being sued here is fair. Both must be met. A defendant that fits the statute but lacks sufficient contacts cannot be hauled into a Massachusetts court, and one with ample contacts still needs a statutory basis. In practice the two steps often overlap, because the statute is generally construed to reach as far as due process allows, but they remain distinct requirements that both have to be satisfied. A plaintiff has to clear both hurdles, and a defendant needs only to knock out one. That asymmetry is why the jurisdictional briefing repays careful attention to both prongs.
Why it matters where you sue
For an injured person, jurisdiction is not a technicality — it determines whether you can litigate at home or must chase the defendant to a distant forum. Suing in another state can mean unfamiliar law, out-of-state lawyers, travel, and practical obstacles that make a valid claim far harder to pursue. Those burdens fall hardest on exactly the people least able to bear them — the seriously injured. Establishing that a Massachusetts court has jurisdiction over the out-of-state wrongdoer keeps the case where the injury happened and where the injured person lives. That is often a decisive practical advantage, which is exactly why out-of-state defendants so frequently contest jurisdiction at the outset — winning that fight can make the whole case go away, or at least move it somewhere far less convenient for the plaintiff. Convenience of forum is not a small thing; it can shape the entire trajectory of a case.
Suing an out-of-state driver or company
The most common long-arm situation in injury cases is the out-of-state defendant whose conduct caused harm inside Massachusetts.
Tortious injury caused in Massachusetts
When an out-of-state driver causes a crash on a Massachusetts road, the statute’s reach is at its clearest: the defendant caused tortious injury by an act in the Commonwealth. A person who drives into Massachusetts and negligently injures someone here has committed the wrongful act within the state, and the long-arm statute plainly authorizes jurisdiction over that claim. The out-of-state driver’s residence elsewhere does not shield them; what matters is that the injury-causing conduct occurred in Massachusetts. Driving into the Commonwealth is itself a purposeful contact with it. This is the strongest and simplest form of long-arm jurisdiction, and it covers the ordinary case of a visiting motorist who causes a wreck and then returns home. The moment the crash happens on a Massachusetts road, the strongest basis for jurisdiction is already in place. Little more is usually needed than proof that the negligent driving happened here.
An act outside the state that injures someone here
Jurisdiction can also reach a defendant whose conduct occurred outside Massachusetts but caused injury inside it — provided the defendant has the additional connections the statute requires. Under the relevant provision, a court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who causes tortious injury in Massachusetts by an act or omission elsewhere if the defendant regularly does or solicits business here, engages in a persistent course of conduct in the state, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or services rendered here. This covers the company that designs or manufactures a dangerous product elsewhere but sells it into Massachusetts, injuring a resident. The out-of-state act plus the in-state business connections together supply the basis for jurisdiction. Neither element alone is always enough under this provision, but together they frequently are.
The defendant’s business contacts
For companies, the “transacting business” and business-connection provisions do a lot of work. A company that regularly sells into Massachusetts, solicits customers here, or derives substantial revenue from the state has the kind of contacts the statute and the Constitution look for. The defense often argues it has no real presence in Massachusetts, but modern commerce means a company can have extensive contacts without an office or storefront in the state. A company can sell heavily into Massachusetts and profit from it while never setting foot here, and the law accounts for that. Documenting the defendant’s actual dealings with Massachusetts — sales, marketing, revenue, and ongoing conduct — is how an injured person establishes the connections that support jurisdiction over an out-of-state business. A company’s own records usually tell the story of how much it really operates in the state.
Online sellers and products shipped into Massachusetts
The rise of e-commerce has made the jurisdiction question harder and more common, as products reach Massachusetts consumers from sellers with no physical presence anywhere near the state.
Targeting Massachusetts versus mere stream of commerce
The central dispute with online sellers is whether the defendant purposefully directed its activity at Massachusetts or merely placed a product into the stream of commerce that happened to carry it here. The claimant argues the seller targeted Massachusetts — marketing to residents, shipping here, operating an interactive site that serves the state. The defense argues it did nothing aimed at Massachusetts specifically and cannot be sued everywhere its products drift. Where the line falls is genuinely contested and fact-specific, and courts look closely at how deliberately the seller reached into the state. A seller that actively cultivates Massachusetts customers stands on very different footing from one whose product arrived here through no design of its own. The difference between courting a market and being carried into it is what these disputes turn on.
The substantial-revenue and persistent-conduct bases
The statute’s provisions on substantial revenue and persistent conduct are well suited to the online seller. A company that derives substantial revenue from goods sold to Massachusetts consumers, or that regularly and persistently does business in the state through its online operation, can fall within the long-arm statute even without a physical presence. The volume and regularity of a seller’s Massachusetts business matter, because they show the connection the statute requires. A steady stream of Massachusetts sales is hard to dismiss as accidental. For an injured consumer, establishing how much the seller actually sells into and earns from Massachusetts is often the key to bringing an out-of-state e-commerce defendant within the reach of a Massachusetts court. Revenue and regularity are concrete facts that cut through the seller’s abstract denials.
The realities of e-commerce jurisdiction
These cases are evolving as courts apply older jurisdictional principles to modern online commerce, and the outcomes are fact-dependent. An interactive site that takes orders from and ships to Massachusetts, backed by real sales volume and marketing aimed at the market, supports jurisdiction more readily than a passive site that merely posts information. The more a website functions as a storefront serving Massachusetts, the closer it comes to a physical one for jurisdictional purposes. Because the analysis turns on the specifics of the seller’s online conduct and its Massachusetts business, these are areas where careful factual development of the defendant’s reach into the state makes the difference. The law here is not perfectly settled, which is why the particular facts of how the seller operated matter so much. In an unsettled area, the facts do more work than any single rule.
Minimum contacts and due process
Even where the statute is satisfied, the Constitution requires that the defendant have enough connection to Massachusetts that being sued here is fundamentally fair.
Purposeful availment
Due process asks whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Massachusetts, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The idea is that a defendant who deliberately reaches into a state — selling there, serving customers there, driving there — should reasonably anticipate being answerable in that state’s courts. Purposeful availment distinguishes deliberate contacts from random, fortuitous, or unilateral ones. A contact the defendant chose is treated very differently from one imposed on it by someone else’s actions. A defendant that chose to do business in or direct conduct toward Massachusetts has availed itself of the forum; one whose only connection is an accident of geography generally has not. The line is between choosing the forum and merely stumbling into it. This is the constitutional heart of the minimum-contacts inquiry. Everything in the due-process analysis ultimately circles back to whether the defendant chose to be here.
Relatedness of the claim
For the kind of case-specific jurisdiction usually at issue here, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with Massachusetts. A driver’s crash here, a product sold here that injured a resident, a service performed here — each ties the claim directly to the defendant’s Massachusetts conduct. This relatedness requirement keeps jurisdiction focused: the defendant is answerable in Massachusetts for claims connected to what it did in or toward Massachusetts, not for unrelated matters. This keeps case-specific jurisdiction tethered to the very conduct that caused the harm. Establishing the link between the defendant’s in-state contacts and the injury is therefore central to the due-process analysis, and it is usually straightforward where the harm itself occurred in the Commonwealth. When the injury happened here, the connection to the forum is hard to dispute.
Fairness and reasonableness
Finally, even with purposeful, related contacts, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable — consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Courts weigh factors like the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient relief, and the efficient resolution of the dispute. Massachusetts has a strong interest in providing a forum for its injured residents, and defending in the state where one chose to do business or caused harm is rarely so burdensome as to be unfair. The state’s interest in its own residents’ access to justice weighs heavily in the balance. The reasonableness inquiry seldom defeats jurisdiction once purposeful, related contacts exist, but it is the final check that the forum is a fair one. It functions as a backstop, catching the rare case where jurisdiction would be technically available yet genuinely unfair.
Injuries, parties, and recovery
Long-arm questions arise across the injury cases where the responsible party is based elsewhere but the harm landed in Massachusetts.
The cases where this arises
Jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant comes up in crashes involving out-of-state drivers and trucking companies, product-liability claims against distant manufacturers and online sellers, and injuries caused by companies that operate in Massachusetts from a base elsewhere. In each, the injured person is here, the harm is here, but the defendant is not — and the ability to sue at home depends on the long-arm analysis. Because these cases can involve serious harm, including catastrophic injuries, being able to litigate in Massachusetts rather than a distant state can matter a great deal to the practical viability of the claim. For a badly injured person, the difference between a nearby court and a faraway one can be the difference between pursuing the case and giving up on it.
Who is responsible
The responsible party may be an out-of-state driver, a trucking or delivery company, a product manufacturer or distributor, an online retailer, or a business that reached into Massachusetts to do the harm-causing act. Identifying each and establishing its contacts with the state is central both to jurisdiction and to a full recovery, since several out-of-state parties may share responsibility. A single product injury can involve a foreign manufacturer, a national distributor, and an online retailer, each with its own contacts to weigh. Sorting out which defendants can be sued in Massachusetts, and which may require suit elsewhere or a choice-of-law analysis, is part of building the case. The goal is to bring every responsible party within reach of a court that can hear the claim, ideally the Massachusetts court closest to the injured person. Consolidating the claim in one convenient forum is far better than scattering it across states.
What a claim can recover
Where jurisdiction is established, the case proceeds like any other, and an injured person can generally recover the full measure of the harm — medical expenses, lost income and earning capacity, and compensation for pain, suffering, and the lasting effects of the injury. The jurisdictional fight is a threshold battle about where the case is heard, not about the value of the claim, but winning it is what allows the injured person to pursue that full recovery in a convenient forum. The threshold win on jurisdiction is what unlocks everything that follows. Losing it can force the claim into a distant state or, in some cases, make it impractical to pursue at all, which is why the jurisdictional analysis is so consequential. It is a threshold issue that quietly determines whether the rest of the case ever gets a fair hearing.
Protecting your claim
Establishing jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant takes deliberate proof of the defendant’s connections to Massachusetts.
Establishing the defendant’s contacts
The central task is showing that the defendant’s conduct fits the long-arm statute and satisfies due process — that it caused injury here, did business here, or purposefully reached into the state, and that the claim arises from those contacts. Where the injury-causing act happened in Massachusetts, that is usually straightforward. Where the act happened elsewhere, the focus shifts to the defendant’s business connections and revenue from the state. The analysis simply moves from where the conduct occurred to how deeply the defendant is woven into the Massachusetts market. Framing the jurisdictional case around the specific statutory bases and the constitutional minimum-contacts standard is what defeats the out-of-state defendant’s effort to escape a Massachusetts court. Precision about which statutory basis applies, and why the contacts satisfy due process, is what carries the argument.
The evidence that matters
Jurisdictional disputes are proven with evidence of the defendant’s dealings with Massachusetts: where the injury-causing conduct occurred, the defendant’s sales and revenue in the state, its marketing and solicitation of Massachusetts customers, the nature of its online operations, and any ongoing course of business here. Much of this is in the defendant’s hands and is developed through jurisdictional discovery when the defendant contests being sued in the state. Assembling that record — and connecting it to the injury — is what establishes the contacts a Massachusetts court needs. Jurisdictional discovery often surfaces exactly the sales and marketing facts the defendant would rather keep quiet. The more the evidence shows a deliberate reach into the state, the stronger the jurisdictional footing. Deliberate conduct toward Massachusetts is the throughline that ties the whole analysis together.
When to call a Boston injury lawyer
When the party who injured you is out of state and is arguing you cannot sue them in Massachusetts, whether your case can proceed here at all can turn on the long-arm analysis. A lawyer can establish the defendant’s contacts with the Commonwealth, meet both the statutory and due-process requirements, and keep the case in a convenient Massachusetts forum; the work is handled on contingency, so there is no fee unless there is a recovery. Our Boston personal injury attorneys handle claims against out-of-state drivers, companies, and product sellers, from interstate trucking crashes to defective-product cases, across the Commonwealth and in nearby communities including Quincy and Cambridge, as reflected across our practice areas. If an out-of-state defendant is telling you that you cannot sue them here, a first conversation costs nothing, and you can reach out to find out whether a Massachusetts court can hear your case.
Reviewed and Approved By
This article was reviewed for legal accuracy by Daniel J. Larson, the founding attorney of Larson Law and a Massachusetts-barred personal injury lawyer in Boston. He represents individuals and families harmed by negligence in serious-injury matters arising from motor-vehicle collisions, unsafe property conditions, defective products, and other preventable incidents. Attorney Larson works litigation-first, developing each case through detailed investigation, discovery, and expert analysis with the expectation that it may be tried. Before founding the firm, he defended doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers in malpractice litigation at a Boston firm — experience that informs how he anticipates the way out-of-state defendants and their insurers approach a claim. He is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue an out-of-state driver who hit me in Massachusetts?
Usually yes. When an out-of-state driver causes a crash on a Massachusetts road, the long-arm statute’s reach is at its clearest, because the defendant caused injury by an act committed here. The driver’s residence in another state does not shield them; what matters is that the negligent, injury-causing conduct happened in Massachusetts. So the ordinary case of a visiting motorist who causes a wreck and then goes home can generally be brought in a Massachusetts court, close to where you live and where the injury occurred.
What is the long-arm statute?
It is the Massachusetts law that authorizes the state’s courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in specified situations — among them, transacting business here, contracting to supply goods or services here, causing injury by an act here, and causing injury here by conduct elsewhere where the defendant regularly does business or derives substantial revenue from the state. It is the first step in the analysis. The second is a constitutional one: exercising jurisdiction must also satisfy due process, which requires that the defendant have enough contacts with Massachusetts that being sued here is fair.
Can I sue an online seller whose product injured me here?
Possibly, and it depends on the seller’s connection to Massachusetts. The key dispute is whether the seller purposefully directed its activity at the state — marketing to residents, shipping here, operating an interactive site serving the market — or merely placed a product into the stream of commerce that happened to reach here. A seller that derives substantial revenue from Massachusetts customers or regularly does business here through its online operation can fall within the long-arm statute even without a physical presence. These cases are fact-specific, so how deliberately the seller reached into the state matters a great deal.
What are “minimum contacts”?
Minimum contacts is the constitutional requirement that a defendant have enough connection to Massachusetts that being sued here is fair. Courts ask whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of doing business or acting in the state, whether the claim arises from those contacts, and whether jurisdiction is reasonable. A defendant that deliberately reached into Massachusetts — selling here, serving customers here, driving here — should reasonably expect to answer in its courts. A defendant whose only connection is a random accident of geography generally has not established the contacts jurisdiction requires.
The out-of-state company says I have to sue it in its home state. Is that right?
Not necessarily. Out-of-state defendants routinely argue that they can only be sued at home, but if the company caused injury in Massachusetts, does substantial business here, or purposefully reached into the state, a Massachusetts court may well have jurisdiction. The answer turns on the specific facts of the company’s contacts with the Commonwealth, which are developed through the case. Because litigating at home rather than in a distant state can be a major practical advantage, it is worth having the jurisdictional question evaluated rather than accepting the company’s position.
Results Disclaimer: Past case results, settlements, and verdicts mentioned on this website do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is unique and depends on its own facts and legal issues.