Summary
This Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision reviews evidentiary rulings in a negligence action concerning property damage caused by a broken water main. The court upheld the trial judge's exclusion of prior city public works leak reports, deeming them minimally probative and potentially confusing. It reversed the admission of oral testimony regarding a municipal pipe-spacing regulation, applying the best evidence rule and noting that official regulations must be proven in writing. Additionally, the court excluded a permit sticker containing regulatory language because the plaintiff failed to establish it as an officially adopted rule.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether reports of the Boston public works department are admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
- Whether oral testimony about a municipal regulation is admissible.
- Whether a sticker indicating a permit condition is admissible as a printed regulation.
- Whether the trial judge’s charge contained improper findings of fact.
Holdings
- The trial judge did not err in excluding exhibits A‑J, D, E, and L because the reports lacked sufficient probative value and, in some instances, contained opinions not admissible as public records.
- Oral testimony proving the contents of a regulation is inadmissible; such regulations must be introduced in written form or as a printed copy.
- The sticker was not admissible because the plaintiff failed to lay foundation that it was a printed copy of an official regulation; without such foundation it is not a public record.
Key quotations
“We are of opinion that under the principles just stated the judge did not err in excluding exhibits for identification “A,” “B,” “C,” “F,” “G,” “H,” “I,” and “J.” Nor was there any error in the exclusion of “D,” “E,” and “L,” which related to the leak in question.” (at 601)
“We are of opinion that it was error to permit proof of the regulation in this manner. Courts do not take judicial notice of regulations; they must be put in evidence.” (at 603)
Factual background
In 1953 the defendant installed a culvert beneath a 30‑inch Boston water main. The main rested on steel I‑beams installed by the defendant. On January 20, 1955 the main broke, flooding the plaintiff's restaurant basement. The plaintiff alleged negligence in suspending the main on the I‑beams; the defendant argued the break resulted from the main's deterioration.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sued for property damage caused by a broken water main allegedly due to the defendant's negligent installation of a culvert. An auditor found for the plaintiff; the case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, seeking exceptions to several evidentiary rulings and portions of the charge.