Corrado v. Rolland

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Corrado v. Rolland

247 N.E.2d 398, 355 Mass. 796

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 N.E.2d 398 (Corrado v. Rolland) 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

Corrado v. Rolland, 247 N.E.2d 398, 355 Mass. 796 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Following a verdict for the plaintiff in this motor vehicle tort action for personal injuries, the judge, subject to the plaintiff’s exception, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on an averment that the damages were inadequate. The plaintiff argues that the inadequacy was due to the judge’s error in admitting in evidence as an exhibit, a repair bill in the sum of $86. The bill had been paid by a third person, not a party, who owned the vehicle in which the plaintiff was seated at the time of the accident. The bill was admitted over objection while the plaintiff was under cross-examination. It was admitted solely “to show the parts of the car that were damaged.” Although no proper foundation was laid for the admission of the bill in evidence, the error does not as matter of law require a new trial. G. L. c. 231, § 132. The bill remotely affected the issue of personal injuries. The plaintiff points to no request which, with the bill in evidence, he made and which the judge declined to give on the issue of damages, nor to any error or inadequacy in the instructions given on that issue. The plaintiff’s evidence of personal injury, although uncontradicted, did not require acceptance by the jury. Moran v. Pieroni, Inc. 326 Mass. 516.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Following a verdict for the plaintiff in this motor vehicle tort action for personal injuries, the judge, subject to the plaintiff’s exception, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on an averment that the damages were inadequate. The plaintiff argues that the inadequacy was due to the judge’s error in admitting in evidence as an exhibit, a repair bill in the sum of $86. The bill had been paid by a third person, not a party, who owned the vehicle in which the plaintiff was seated at the time of the accident. The bill was admitted over objection while the plaintiff was under cross-examination. It was admitted solely “to show the parts of the car that were damaged.” Although no proper foundation was laid for the admission of the bill in evidence, the error does not as matter of law require a new trial. G. L. c. 231, § 132. The bill remotely affected the issue of personal injuries. The plaintiff points to no request which, with the bill in evidence, he made and which the judge declined to give on the issue of damages, nor to any error or inadequacy in the instructions given on that issue. The plaintiff’s evidence of personal injury, although uncontradicted, did not require acceptance by the jury. Moran v. Pieroni, Inc. 326 Mass. 516.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 N.E.2d 398, 355 Mass. 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corrado-v-rolland-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack