Aceto, Bonner & Cole PC
 

Court finds expert testimony unnecessary in Banks v. Boston Properties, LLC

January 28, 2017

On behalf of Greg Aceto at Aceto, Bonner & Cole PC

A Massachusetts Superior Court Judge recently held that a jury does not need to hear expert testimony on how an elevator door malfunctioned in order to decide a negligence claim.

Expert testimony can often be the deciding factor for a jury's determination. Because of the persuasive nature of expert testimony, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike regularly seek to include expert testimony in an effort to influence the jury to endorse their respective positions on the evidence. In order to admit expert testimony as evidence in a trial, the proponent of the testimony must convince the trial judge that the content of the proposed testimony satisfies a number of factors enumerated in the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence thereby ruling that it is admissible.

Limiting a Party's Utilization of Expert Witness Testimony

In accordance with the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence § 702(a), an expert witness may only testify if that expert's knowledge helps the jury understand the evidence presented at trial or to determine a fact in issue. In some cases, expert witnesses play an important role in educating the jury about a complex matter to ensure that justice is properly achieved, while in other cases, an expert witness may only serve the strategic purpose of contradicting the admitted facts of a case in an effort to divide the jury. Ultimately, the decision to admit expert testimony rests solely with the trial judge based on a relevancy determination under § 702(a).

Recently, in the case Banks v. Boston Properties, LLC, et al., a construction worker was injured when a poorly maintained automatic elevator door smashed down on his head. The trial judge refused to grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, because the judge disagreed with the Defendant's claim that no jury could find for the plaintiff without "essential expert guidance" about how the elevator door fell. The judge reasoned that the courts generally underestimate the intelligence of modern jurors, and that there has been an over-reliance on experts to the point that courts are too often of the mindset that, "all cases involving a machine require that jurors must be led by hand...to perform their duties under the laws as instructed and render justice." The judge then pointed to the case of Commonwealth v. Hinds to reiterate the judge's reasoning that it is the job of the jurors, not expert witnesses, to decide the facts of a case, and further reasoned that a juror's common sense and life experience are sufficient to determine whether the elevator was negligently maintained.

Possible implications for the utilization of expert witnesses in Massachusetts

In the past, courts have interpreted § 702 broadly, but the judge's holding in Banks v. Boston Properties, LLC, et al. may signal a trend in the Massachusetts Courts towards a more restrictive position on the admissibility of expert testimony. Moreover, this decision demonstrates that Massachusetts Courts still rely on the ruling in Commonwealth v. Hinds, and follow its sentiment that jurors decide the facts of a particular case, perhaps, portending a movement away from "an over-reliance on expert witnesses" in trying a case to a jury.

News and Articles