Intentional Torts Dismissed Against Public Official Under Common-Law Immunity

In Grafton & Upton Railroad Co. v. Burt, the Appeals Court upheld dismissal of claims against Hopedale officials, ruling that their good faith efforts to raise water supply concerns were protected by common-law immunity and did not constitute civil rights violations.  

The case arose after the Chair of the Hopedale Water & Sewer Commission, raised concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about potential impacts on the town’s water supply from a Superfund related soil transfer operation run by Grafton & Upton Railroad. The Chair’s outreach—spanning calls and emails between 2022 and 2023—focused on potential risks of moving contaminated soil through a Zone II aquifer protection area, even though regulators indicated the project met required standards. 

After the railroad ultimately lost its subcontract on the cleanup project, it sued the Chair and another town official personally for millions of dollars in alleged lost revenue, claiming intentional interference with contractual relations, bad faith, and civil rights violations. Both the trial court and the Appeals Court rejected these claims, emphasizing that municipal decision makers are entitled to common-law immunity when acting within the scope of their duties—so long as they act in good faith, without malice or corruption.  

The Appeals Court noted that the immunity found under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, § 2, did not apply because the Act does not shield public officials in their individual capacity from intentional torts. However, the officials were protected by common-law immunity, under which “a public official exercising judgment and discretion is not liable for negligence or other errors during official decision-making, provided the official acted in good faith, without malice, and free of corruption.” Since the transportation facility was located in the town’s Zone II watershed protection area, the Court found that the Chair’s concerns were reasonable. It was part of the Chair’s official responsibilities to question the potential for harm to the town’s water supply from the operation. Public officials are presumed to act honestly, and the evidence presented by the Company failed to suggest any plausible malice or bad faith by the Chair. The Court noted that the Chair’s communications were “unwaveringly polite and professional,” and there was no evidence that he acted outside the scope of his authority. 

For municipal officials, this ruling is noteworthy not just as a legal win, but as a reaffirmation of your ability to ask hard questions, advocate for public safety, and scrutinize projects that may affect your community—without fear of personal liability, provided your actions are grounded in good‑faith judgment.