Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
86 Mass. App. Ct. 457
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Colleen Fyffe was injured in a May 8, 2009 MBTA Green Line trolley collision; liability was stipulated before trial and the sole issue for the jury was damages.
- Trial lasted two days; plaintiff presented medical testimony (Dr. Rockett) that she suffered a C4-5 herniated disc and had ongoing disability and risk of severe future injury; defendants’ expert (Dr. D’Alton) disputed long-term severity.
- Jury returned a lump-sum compensatory verdict of $1,228,000.
- Defendants moved for a new trial/remittitur, arguing the verdict was excessive and the result of prejudicial misconduct by plaintiff’s trial counsel (numerous references to facts not in evidence, speculation about quadriplegia, appeals to jurors as the “conscience of the community,” and improper references to future remedial measures and media coverage).
- The trial judge found counsel’s conduct improper but denied a new trial, concluding her curative instructions sufficed.
- The Appeals Court reversed: it held counsel’s repeated, defiant misconduct (and the insufficiency of curative measures) created an unacceptable risk of material prejudice and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff counsel’s repeated references to facts not in evidence and inflammatory themes required a new trial | Counsel’s advocacy did not materially prejudice the verdict; curative instructions and final charge cured any error | Counsel’s repeated improper statements (opening, questioning, and especially closing) inflamed the jury, invaded the damages-only scope, and were not cured by instructions | New trial required: cumulative misconduct could have materially affected the outcome and deprived defendants of a fair trial |
| Whether argument about future risk of quadriplegia (not supported by record) was permissible | Risk was a reasonable extrapolation of plaintiff’s expert testimony and relevant to future damages | The quadriplegia suggestion invited speculation beyond the evidence and should have been excluded | Court held the argument improperly invited speculation and was prejudicial in context |
| Whether appeals to jurors as community "guardians" and references to media/ public safety improperly influenced damages | Such appeals are permissible rhetorical devices to frame damages as socially important | These arguments sought to convert a damages-only inquiry into a punitive/public-safety verdict and were outside the jury’s role | Court held these appeals were improper and contributed to prejudice |
| Whether the trial judge’s curative instructions and final charge cured the prejudicial effect | Judge’s numerous admonitions and final instructions were sufficient; judge best positioned to assess impact | Despite instructions, counsel repeatedly defied rulings before the jury; curative measures were inadequate given the pervasiveness of misconduct | Held instructions were insufficient under the circumstances; appellate court could not say with substantial confidence errors did not make a material difference |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstein v. Gontarz, 364 Mass. 800 (1974) (improper closing argument can require a new trial when prejudicial).
- DeJesus v. Yogel, 404 Mass. 44 (1989) (prejudicial error test: misconduct that "could have made a material difference").
- Polonsky v. CNA Ins. Co., 852 F.2d 626 (1st Cir. 1988) (counsel must balance zealous advocacy with duty to the court; deceptions and misrepresentations will not be tolerated).
- Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) (isolated improper remarks, followed by curative instruction, will not necessarily warrant a new trial).
- Gath v. M/A-Com, Inc., 440 Mass. 482 (2003) (trial judge’s discretion in weighing effect of improper argument).
- Allen v. Boston Elevated Ry., 212 Mass. 191 (1912) (curative instructions do not always remove prejudice from inflammatory argument).
- Williams v. Drake, 146 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1998) (cumulative effect of multiple miscues can undermine fairness of proceedings).
- Leone v. Doran, 363 Mass. 1 (1973) (aggregate misconduct may require reversal).