Negligence – Motel – Expert

Where a jury found that a plaintiff who fell down the stairs at a motel in Williamstown failed to prove that the defendant owner of the motel was negligent, the plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial despite arguing that the defendant’s expert witness should have been sequestered during the presentation of the plaintiff’s case.

“After falling down the stairs at the Cozy Corner Motel in Williamstown, Massachusetts, Dr. Bradley Breeden (‘Plaintiff’) commenced this action sounding in negligence under Massachusetts state law. He brought his claim against the motel’s owner, VK Krupa Corporation (‘Defendant’), and the President of VK Krupa Corporation, Sonalben K. Vyas; and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant was negligent. …

“Plaintiff now seeks a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. As grounds for this request, Plaintiff argues (i) this court erred in its handling of Defendant’s expert, James Younger (‘Younger’); and (ii) this court erred in refusing to allow Plaintiff’s experts to testify regarding the relationship between photometric measurements and certain building codes inapplicable to the motel as a matter of law. In response, Defendant argues the court did not err in its handling of Younger and the expert evidentiary issue was settled in this court’s orders at Docket Nos. 67, 70, and 74. For the following reasons, the court concludes a new trial is unwarranted.  …

“Plaintiff first contends Younger should have been sequestered during the presentation of Plaintiff’s case. But no motion requesting sequestration was filed by either party. Rather, the issue was first raised orally on the second day of trial. Once raised, the court inquired why it was necessary to sequester an expert witness, as procedure allows such a witness offering an opinion to view other testimony. Plaintiff’s counsel did not press the issue further by, for example, citing the federal rules or case law supporting his request. The court considers this acquiescence a form of waiver. And waiver of an issue during trial denies a party the ability to rely on the issue when pressing a Rule 59 motion. …

“However, even assuming sequestration was not waived, it is not grounds for a new trial. …

“Here, Younger was an expert witness; he was not a fact witness. … Courts in the First Circuit, therefore, commonly hold ‘there is “little if any reason to sequester a witness who is to testify in an expert capacity only and not to the facts of the case.”’ … In addition, an expert ‘may rely on other witness’s testimony or other expert conclusions to form an opinion’ without violating Fed.R.Evid. 703. … Moreover, Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from Younger’s presence at trial because Younger had already reviewed the depositions of Plaintiff’s witnesses and read the reports of both of Plaintiff’s proposed experts. … Accordingly, sequestration is not a basis for a new trial. …

“In a second argument for a new trial, Plaintiff seeks to re-litigate the court’s previous exclusion of certain expert testimony proffered by Plaintiff. … Specifically, Plaintiff argues questions he posed on cross-examination of Kashyap Vyas (‘Vyas’) and Younger ‘opened the door,’ thereby requiring the court allow the following: (1) testimony asserting Defendant’s motel failed to comply with building code provisions not applicable to the structure as a matter of law; and (2) testimony from an expert who was unaware Massachusetts had its own building code containing a grandfather clause. The court does not agree and ruled at trial that the Plaintiff could not open his own door. …

“Here, Vyas and Younger said nothing on direct examination which opened the door to the admission of inadmissible testimony. … It was Plaintiff’s choice to wade into the area of lighting and he cannot now complain about the result. By contrast, Defendant’s counsel stated she had no intention of addressing lighting on either direct examination or re-direct. … Consequently, this testimony provided no basis for Plaintiff to introduce inadmissible evidence.”

Breeden v. VK Krupa Corporation, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-461-24) (8 pages) (Mastroianni, J.) (Civil Action No. 20-30157-MGM) (Sept. 27, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.