Shahzade v. C.J. Mabardy, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1992
• Citation: 586 N.E.2d 3,411 Mass. 788
• Parties: Ann M. SHAHZADE v. C.J. MABARDY, INC.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 3

586 N.E.2d 3

411 Mass. 788

Ann M. SHAHZADE v. C.J. MABARDY, INC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Middlesex.

Argued Oct. 7, 1991.

Decided Feb. 13, 1992.

Richard T. Corbett, Boston, for defendant.

Richard d'A. Belin, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

LIACOS, Chief Justice.

This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident involving the plaintiff, Ann M. Shahzade, and an employee of the defendant corporation, C.J. Mabardy, Inc. ¹ The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $300,000. After a motion for a new trial was denied, the defendant appealed to the Appeals Court. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The defendant argues the trial judge failed to conduct an impartial trial, and that he erred in refusing to instruct the jury "on the issue of plaintiff's comparative negligence, both as a result of her sudden stopping of her vehicle and her failure to use a seat belt." We affirm.

In November, 1984, the plaintiff was stopped in a line of traffic approaching a stop sign at the intersection of Cross Street and Lake Street in Belmont, when her automobile was hit from behind by a pickup truck owned by the defendant and driven by the defendant's employee, Joseph Murphy. The parties differ slightly in their accounts of the events immediately preceding the accident. The plaintiff testified that she had stopped and waited in the line of traffic before she was hit unexpectedly from behind. Murphy testified that he and the plaintiff both had been stopped in the line of traffic, that the plaintiff proceeded and that he followed, that the plaintiff then stopped "suddenly, unexpected[ly]," and that Murphy did not have enough time to stop. Murphy estimated that he was travelling fifteen miles an hour when he struck the plaintiff's automobile.

The plaintiff, who was not wearing a seat belt, ² was thrown forward in her automobile and her head hit the steering wheel. The plaintiff was shaken but was able to drive her automobile home. Once home, she called a friend to take her to the emergency department at Choate-Symmes Hospital, where she was examined, treated, and released.

The next morning the plaintiff noticed that her left eye was red. She made an appointment with an ophthalmologist, Dr. Paul Barsam, who determined that the plaintiff had sustained an ocular contusion, or a blow to the eye, which resulted in "edema, or swelling, like a blister" in the back of her left eye. The plaintiff subsequently developed complications in both eyes, including retinal detachment in her right eye. By the time of trial in 1989, the plaintiff had lost 40% of the vision in her right eye. Barsam testified that the plaintiff was likely to experience a total loss of vision in her right eye and a partial loss of vision in her left eye. He also testified that, in his opinion, the plaintiff's eye problems were due to the injury she sustained in the accident. ³

1. The Judge's Remarks During Trial.

The defendant contends that certain remarks and rulings by the judge were prejudicial to the defense and demonstrate bias. We perceive no bias or prejudice. We address each claim of error in turn.

a. During jury empanelment the judge instructed the potential jurors that the case involved an automobile accident and that the "principal injury in this case is the fact that the [plaintiff] suffered a very severe, apparently a very severe injury to her eye and has trouble with her eyes resulting from this accident." Defense counsel promptly objected to the judge's characterization of the plaintiff's injury as "severe." The ensuing colloquy between the judge and defense counsel in the presence of the venire is set out in the margin. ⁴

We think it clear that the judge's statement regarding the extent of the plaintiff's injuries reflects inadvertence rather than bias. Moreover, the error, if any, was corrected by the judge's subsequent statement that he knew nothing about the facts of the case and that he simply was characterizing the plaintiff's allegations. See Runels v. Lowell Sun Co., 318 Mass. 466, 472-473, 62 N.E.2d 121 (1945); Bernasconi v. Bassi, 261 Mass. 26, 27-28, 158 N.E. 341 (1927). In light of his corrective language, as well as the judge's later charge to the jury that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that she was in fact injured in the accident, we do not believe that the defendant was prejudiced in any manner by the judge's remark.

b. During his cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant introduced in evidence certain photographs depicting the relatively minor damage that the plaintiff's automobile had sustained in the accident. Defense counsel then asked the judge if the photographs could be "published" to the jury. The defendant now contends that the judge's response, which is set out in the margin, ⁵ reflects an "obvious attempt" by the judge to subject defense counsel to ridicule.

The judge's statements appear only to have been intended to clarify, for himself or for the jury, what it was the defendant was requesting. Moreover, even if we were to construe the judge's remarks as sarcastic, we do not perceive any prejudice to the defendant. Compare Federal Nat'l Bank v. O'Keefe, 267 Mass. 75, 82-83, 165 N.E. 897 (1929) and Adams v. Yellow Cab Corp., 12 Mass.App.Ct. 931, 425 N.E.2d 398 (1981) (judge responded to counsel's request for a side bar conference by asking, "What do you want to hide from the jury?"), with Olson v. Ela, 8 Mass.App. Ct 165, 168-169, 392 N.E.2d 1057 (1979) (judge's remarks, although better left unsaid, did not so prejudice plaintiff as to require reversal; judge's subsequent comments and charge cured error, if any). The judge's comment did not reflect on the merits of the defendant's case, and, taken on its own, the comment hardly served to hold defense counsel up to such scorn and ridicule that his effectiveness as an advocate was impeded.

c. The defendant contends that the judge demonstrated bias by permitting the plaintiff's expert witness to give "long winded, nonresponsive answers" over defense counsel's objections. On direct, the witness's answers were given without a single objection. The record reveals that the witness's answers were neither "long winded" nor "nonresponsive." The judge once admonished defense counsel on cross-examination not to interrupt the witness before his answers were complete. On redirect, defense counsel interrupted the witness's response on one occasion and was again told to let the witness complete his answer. The answer was appropriate, and there was no further objection or motion to strike. These actions hardly reflect bias on the part of the judge. Additionally, since defense counsel did not move to strike the alleged nonresponsive answers once they were completed, the defendant's present claims of error are not preserved for appeal. See Grant v. Golden, 360 Mass. 849, 274 N.E.2d 453 (1971); Commonwealth v. Patalano, 254 Mass. 69, 74-75, 149 N.E. 689 (1925).

d. The defendant contends that the trial judge implicitly adopted the testimony of Dr. Barsam, the plaintiff's expert witness, by specifically referring to Dr. Barsam's testimony in his charge to the jury. This contention is without merit. Although the judge did refer specifically to Dr. Barsam's testimony, the judge did not reveal his opinion of that testimony. See G.L. c. 231, § 81 (1990 ed.).

e. During the course of trial, a number of the plaintiff's hospital records were introduced in evidence, including records from the emergency department at Choate-Symmes Hospital where the plaintiff was treated on the night of the accident. In his cross-examination of the plaintiff, and in his closing argument, defense counsel attempted to demonstrate that the plaintiff's trial testimony as to the nature and extent of her injuries was inconsistent with, or was not corroborated by, the entries in some of these records. The judge commented at length on the hospital records in his charge to the jury, the relevant portion of which is set out in the margin. ⁶ The defendant now argues that the judge's comments impugned the reliability of the hospital records and reflected bias on the part of the judge.

It is beyond question that "parties to an action are entitled to a fair and unprejudiced submission of the testimony and the issues to the jury, without indication of the opinion of the judge upon the weight or effect of evidence or as to who should prevail upon any issue where a material fact is left in doubt by the testimony." Federal Nat'l Bank v. O'Keefe, supra 267 Mass. at 83, 165 N.E. 897. G.L. c. 231, § 81. In the present case, we think the judge failed to adhere to these principles when he emphasized various factors that could detract from the accuracy of the hospital records at issue. The judge's statements that hospital records are "pure, unadulterated hearsay," that hearsay is unreliable, and that emergency room records are particularly suspect because of the manner in which emergency rooms are operated created an impression that, in the judge's opinion, any inconsistencies between the plaintiff's testimony and the hospital records readily could be explained by the fact that the hospital records were inaccurate. The judge's further instruction that, "if you think that [the records] are accurate and true, then adopt them" did not remedy the error, as it did nothing to dispel the impression that the judge himself thought the records inaccurate. Thus, while we note that the judge's intention may have been to impress upon the jury that they were not required to accept the records as accurate simply because the records had been admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule, the instruction given by the judge was not neutral. Therefore it was erroneous.

Although we conclude that the judge erred, we do not believe that the defendant was...