Benson v. Guyette

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Benson v. Guyette

213 N.E.2d 388, 350 Mass. 759

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 213 N.E.2d 388 (Benson v. Guyette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. Guyette, 213 N.E.2d 388, 350 Mass. 759 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action of tort for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a fall from a second floor porch of the defendant’s house to which he had been sent by his employer to install doors, the judge, subject to the plaintiff’s exceptions, admitted in evidence testimony by the plaintiff’s employer, on cross-examination by the defendant, that the plaintiff’s injury was covered by the employer’s workmen’s compensation insurance, and, as exhibits, photostats of the employer’s report of injury to the Division of Industrial Accidents and of the plaintiff’s claim for compensation. All of this was prejudicial error. Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158. West v. Molders Foundry Co. Inc. 342 Mass. 8, 9, and eases cited. The defendant’s contention that the documents were admissible as contradictions of the employer’s and the plaintiff’s testimony is without merit. The testimony was in amplification and not in contradiction of the exhibits. The ease of Nappi v. Falcon Truck Renting Corp. 286 App. Div. (N. Y.) 123, affd. 1 N. Y. 2d 750, cited by the defendant, is not pertinent to the situation before us.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action of tort for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a fall from a second floor porch of the defendant’s house to which he had been sent by his employer to install doors, the judge, subject to the plaintiff’s exceptions, admitted in evidence testimony by the plaintiff’s employer, on cross-examination by the defendant, that the plaintiff’s injury was covered by the employer’s workmen’s compensation insurance, and, as exhibits, photostats of the employer’s report of injury to the Division of Industrial Accidents and of the plaintiff’s claim for compensation. All of this was prejudicial error. Chaves v. Weeks, 242 Mass. 156, 158. West v. Molders Foundry Co. Inc. 342 Mass. 8, 9, and eases cited. The defendant’s contention that the documents were admissible as contradictions of the employer’s and the plaintiff’s testimony is without merit. The testimony was in amplification and not in contradiction of the exhibits. The ease of Nappi v. Falcon Truck Renting Corp. 286 App. Div. (N. Y.) 123, affd. 1 N. Y. 2d 750, cited by the defendant, is not pertinent to the situation before us.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 N.E.2d 388, 350 Mass. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-guyette-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack