Vernazzarro v. A. A. Will Corp.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Vernazzarro v. A. A. Will Corp.

318 N.E.2d 631, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 885

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedNovember 8, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 318 N.E.2d 631 (Vernazzarro v. A. A. Will Corp.) 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

Vernazzarro v. A. A. Will Corp., 318 N.E.2d 631, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 885 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. At the trial an expert witness, called by the defendant, was asked a series of questions during cross-examination as to whether he agreed or disagreed with statements which the examiner read from a dental treatise. The questions were asked without objection and were answered. The witness was then asked the title of the treatise. The defendant’s objection to this question was overruled and the answer given. The witness was then asked: “So, in essence, doctor, what . . . [the treatise writer] is saying is that you shouldn’t construct a lower denture against natural upper teeth.” The defendant’s objection was overruled, and the witness answered in the affirmative. The question merely paraphrased in non-technical language what had been read to the witness from the treatise. Although the treatise was not competent evidence, the name of its author had been indicated and the parts summarized had been read to the witness without objection. We fail to see how the defendant could have been harmed by the admission of such cumulative evidence which added nothing to that which was already in the case. Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 65-66 (1943). The cases of Allen v. Boston Elev. Ry. 212 Mass. 191 (1912), and Percoco’s Case, 273 Mass. 429 (1930), upon which the defendants rely, are distinguishable. _ , ,

, , Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. At the trial an expert witness, called by the defendant, was asked a series of questions during cross-examination as to whether he agreed or disagreed with statements which the examiner read from a dental treatise. The questions were asked without objection and were answered. The witness was then asked the title of the treatise. The defendant’s objection to this question was overruled and the answer given. The witness was then asked: “So, in essence, doctor, what . . . [the treatise writer] is saying is that you shouldn’t construct a lower denture against natural upper teeth.” The defendant’s objection was overruled, and the witness answered in the affirmative. The question merely paraphrased in non-technical language what had been read to the witness from the treatise. Although the treatise was not competent evidence, the name of its author had been indicated and the parts summarized had been read to the witness without objection. We fail to see how the defendant could have been harmed by the admission of such cumulative evidence which added nothing to that which was already in the case. Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 65-66 (1943). The cases of Allen v. Boston Elev. Ry. 212 Mass. 191 (1912), and Percoco’s Case, 273 Mass. 429 (1930), upon which the defendants rely, are distinguishable. _ , ,

, , Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 N.E.2d 631, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernazzarro-v-a-a-will-corp-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack