Burns v. Jones

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Burns v. Jones

98 N.E. 29, 211 Mass. 475, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 814

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 1, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 98 N.E. 29 (Burns v. Jones) 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

Burns v. Jones, 98 N.E. 29, 211 Mass. 475, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 814 (Mass. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

DeCourcy, J.

This was an action of tort for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by a servant of the defendant. The only exceptions relate to the admission of evidence.

I. The plaintiff’s testimony that he felt humiliated in consequence of the assault and did not sleep any all night was rightly admitted. The insult and indignity inflicted upon him may well have occasioned distress of mind and injury to his feelings more serious than the physical damage, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable compensation therefor. Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552. Meagher v. Driscoll, 99 Mass. 281. Lopes v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487.

2. The defendant introduced testimony of a regulation of the hotel that no clothing should be changed in any part of the toilet room; but there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of its existence. In redirect examination the plaintiff was allowed to testify that when he was having his shoes polished and the porter said to him, “You can’t change your stockings here,” he did not understand that the porter was forbidding him to change them inside the toilet room. It does not appear for what purpose this testimony was admitted. Probably the trial judge inferred that the defendant intended to argue in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff provoked the assault by wilfully violating a regulation of the hotel; and deemed it competent for the plaintiff to show that to his mind the somewhat ambiguous notice prohibited the use for the purpose intended of only the public portion of the toilet room. [477]*477But even assuming that this testimony was incompetent, it was at most immaterial and did not affect the merits of the action. A harmless error of this character, that does not appear to have injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties, furnishes no ground for the reversal of a verdict that was warranted after a full and fair trial. Wilson v. Fall River Daily Herald Publishing Co. 143 Mass. 581. Scaplen v. Blanchard, 187 Mass. 73. 1 Wig-more on Evidence, § 21.

Exceptions overruled.

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

DeCourcy, J.

This was an action of tort for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by a servant of the defendant. The only exceptions relate to the admission of evidence.

I. The plaintiff’s testimony that he felt humiliated in consequence of the assault and did not sleep any all night was rightly admitted. The insult and indignity inflicted upon him may well have occasioned distress of mind and injury to his feelings more serious than the physical damage, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable compensation therefor. Smith v. Holcomb, 99 Mass. 552. Meagher v. Driscoll, 99 Mass. 281. Lopes v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487.

2. The defendant introduced testimony of a regulation of the hotel that no clothing should be changed in any part of the toilet room; but there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of its existence. In redirect examination the plaintiff was allowed to testify that when he was having his shoes polished and the porter said to him, “You can’t change your stockings here,” he did not understand that the porter was forbidding him to change them inside the toilet room. It does not appear for what purpose this testimony was admitted. Probably the trial judge inferred that the defendant intended to argue in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff provoked the assault by wilfully violating a regulation of the hotel; and deemed it competent for the plaintiff to show that to his mind the somewhat ambiguous notice prohibited the use for the purpose intended of only the public portion of the toilet room. [477]*477But even assuming that this testimony was incompetent, it was at most immaterial and did not affect the merits of the action. A harmless error of this character, that does not appear to have injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties, furnishes no ground for the reversal of a verdict that was warranted after a full and fair trial. Wilson v. Fall River Daily Herald Publishing Co. 143 Mass. 581. Scaplen v. Blanchard, 187 Mass. 73. 1 Wig-more on Evidence, § 21.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.E. 29, 211 Mass. 475, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-jones-mass-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack