Michel Nassif v. Alexander Tuan-Quang Nguyen.
24-P-0882
| Mass. App. Ct. | Jul 8, 2025Background
- Michel Nassif sued Alexander Tuan-Quang Nguyen for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress after a road rage incident in which Nguyen assaulted Nassif.
- Nguyen had previously been convicted criminally for assault and battery, as well as for threatening to commit a crime, based on the same conduct.
- In the civil trial, the judge held that collateral estoppel precluded Nguyen from disputing that he committed a battery but allowed him to contest whether Nassif suffered injury and the extent of damages.
- For the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the judge ruled collateral estoppel did not apply because those issues had not been previously litigated.
- The jury found for Nassif on the battery claim and awarded $10,000, but found against him on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because his distress was not "severe."
- Nassif appealed, claiming the judge erred in admitting Nguyen’s testimony about the incident, purportedly in violation of collateral estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Nguyen’s testimony after prior conviction | Collateral estoppel should prevent Nguyen from testifying about events related to battery; admission prejudiced Nassif | Only contesting intentional infliction claim, which was not litigated before; testimony relevant to defense against that claim | No error; testimony properly admitted for intentional infliction claim; limiting instructions cured any prejudice |
| Potential prejudice from testimony suggesting Nassif was the aggressor | Testimony may have misled jury to believe Nguyen was justified in his conduct | Jury instructed Nguyen had no justification or excuse; verdict form reflected this | Instructions and verdict form adequately protected against prejudice; jury rationally decided the issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (rule 23.0 summary decisions and their persuasive, not binding, value)
- Pierce v. Morrison Mahoney LLP, 452 Mass. 718 (explaining offensive collateral estoppel in civil actions)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Niziolek, 395 Mass. 737 (collateral estoppel applies in civil actions following criminal conviction)
- Miles v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 412 Mass. 424 (elements of collateral estoppel and requirement of fairness)
- Polay v. McMahon, 468 Mass. 379 (standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (definition of assault and battery)
- Wahlstrom v. JPA IV Mgt. Co., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 445 (prejudicial error standard on appeal)