Mack v. Devonfield Inn, LLC.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Mack v. Devonfield Inn, LLC.

113 N.E.3d 934

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedNovember 7, 2018

Docket18-P-508

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.E.3d 934 (Mack v. Devonfield Inn, LLC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mack v. Devonfield Inn, LLC., 113 N.E.3d 934 (Mass. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

A Superior Court jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Devonfield Inn, LLC (Inn), on a claim for negligence brought by the plaintiff, Janet Mack, after Mack injured her wrist when she fell at the Inn. On appeal, Mack contends, as she did below, that there was error in the jury instructions. We affirm.

Our review of this matter is hampered by the deficiencies in the record before us. Mack has included a transcript that contains only the jury charge conference, the jury charge, and the verdict. See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a), as amended, 378 Mass. 932 (1979) (composition of record on appeal shall include transcript of proceedings). With this in mind, "we review [the] objections to [the] jury instructions to determine if there was any error, and, if so, whether the error affected the substantial rights of the objecting party." Dos Santos v. Coleta, 465 Mass. 148, 153-154 (2013), quoting Hopkins v. Medeiros, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 600, 611 (2000).

Here, the jury instructions were not a model of clarity. However, given Mack's failure to include a complete transcript of the trial, she is unable to meet her burden to demonstrate prejudicial error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

A Superior Court jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Devonfield Inn, LLC (Inn), on a claim for negligence brought by the plaintiff, Janet Mack, after Mack injured her wrist when she fell at the Inn. On appeal, Mack contends, as she did below, that there was error in the jury instructions. We affirm.

Our review of this matter is hampered by the deficiencies in the record before us. Mack has included a transcript that contains only the jury charge conference, the jury charge, and the verdict. See Mass. R. A. P. 8 (a), as amended, 378 Mass. 932 (1979) (composition of record on appeal shall include transcript of proceedings). With this in mind, "we review [the] objections to [the] jury instructions to determine if there was any error, and, if so, whether the error affected the substantial rights of the objecting party." Dos Santos v. Coleta, 465 Mass. 148, 153-154 (2013), quoting Hopkins v. Medeiros, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 600, 611 (2000).

Here, the jury instructions were not a model of clarity. However, given Mack's failure to include a complete transcript of the trial, she is unable to meet her burden to demonstrate prejudicial error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.E.3d 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-devonfield-inn-llc-massappct-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack