Court Opinion

ID: 9522209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:19:55.654714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:24.065075
License: Public Domain

O’Connor, J.
(dissenting, with whom Lynch, J., joins).
I disagree with the court because I believe that the plaintiff failed to request a proper instruction, and also because the plaintiff failed to state the grounds of her objection to the judge’s failure to charge as requested.
The judge chose to instruct the jury that expert medical opinion evidence was necessary to establish the defendant’s negligence. Because of that, the plaintiff, on proper request, would have been entitled to a jury instruction, in substance, that if the jury were to find that the defendant had told the plaintiff that he had severed her ureter by mistake, that it was his fault, and that he was sorry, they could infer that the defendant had admitted his negligence, although that inference would not be required. On proper request, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a further instruction that if the defendant had admitted his negligence the jury could find on the basis of that testimony alone and without other credible expert testimony that he had in fact been negligent, although that finding would not be required. However, instructions of that type were not requested.
Before the charge, the plaintiff requested an instruction that “[a] statement by the defendant to the plaintiff and her husband that he had cut her ureter, that it was his fault, that he had made a mistake, and that he was sending her to a fine hospital *572in order that the damage be remedied, if believed by the jury, is more than a statement of regret or sympathy evoked by human suffering, and is an admission which is to be considered by the jury in arriving at its verdict” (emphasis added). At the conclusion of the charge, the plaintiff reiterated her request. The requested instruction could not properly have been given. In no event would it have been appropriate for the judge to invade the province of the jury by instructing that if the jury believed that the defendant made the statements attributed to him, those statements were more than statements of regret or sympathy and were admissions to be considered by the jury. Whether those statements, if the jury were to believe they were made, were anything more than statements of regret or sympathy, or were admissions to be considered by the jury, were questions of fact to be determined by the jury rather than by the judge in the form of rulings. At no time did the plaintiff request an instruction of the kind to which she was entitled.
Even if the plaintiff was entitled to an instruction that was not given, she failed to preserve her right to assign as error the judge’s failure to give it. At the conclusion of the charge the plaintiff objected to the judge’s omission of her requested instruction. However, she failed to state the grounds of her objection as is required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 51 (b), 365 Mass. 816 (1974). That rule provides that “[n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection” (emphasis added). The plaintiff merely stated her objection. She articulated no grounds whatsoever. In particular, she did not even suggest that there was a reason why she was entitled to the requested instruction after the main charge that did not exist when the instruction was first requested. The plaintiff gave no hint that the judge’s instruction on the importance of expert testimony created the risk that in the absence of the requested instruction the jury might erroneously think that an admission of fault by the defendant would be legally insufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. This court should not ignore the plain requirements of Mass.R. *573Civ. P. 51 (b) that a party may not assign as error the failure to give an instruction unless he objects before the jury retires and states distinctly the grounds of his objection. Had the plaintiff complied with the rule, the error which the court holds necessitates a new trial might well have been avoided. Fairness to the prevailing party and to the taxpayers who support our courts requires that a party who fails to give the trial judge the help required by our rules should not be rewarded for that failure by being given a new trial. I would affirm the judgment below.