Posts tagged "1109316"

Weiss v. City of Cambridge (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-093-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-1439                                        Appeals Court   MIKEL WEISS  vs.  CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.     No. 15-P-1439.   Middlesex.     May 12, 2016. – July 28, 2016.   Present:  Rubin, Milkey, & Neyman, JJ.     Negligence, Motor vehicle, Pedestrian, Contributory, Violation of statute.  Statute, Construction.  Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury, New trial.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 14, 2013.   The case was tried before Peter B. Krupp, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by him.     Keplin K. U. Allwaters, Assistant City Solicitor, for the defendant. Christopher C. Mathers for the plaintiff.     MILKEY, J.  During the evening rush hour of December 7, 2011, Mikel Weiss was walking across 2nd Street in Cambridge, at its intersection with Binney Street.  Before she reached the other side, Weiss was struck by a truck that was making a left-hand turn onto 2nd Street from Binney Street.  The driver of the truck (driver) was an employee of the city of Cambridge (city), who was completing a ten-plus hour shift.[1]  As a result of the accident, Weiss suffered serious long-term injuries to both knees, incurred significant medical bills, and missed several weeks of work.  In the personal injury action that Weiss brought against the city in Superior Court, the main disputed issue was the relative degree of fault between pedestrian and driver.  Weiss was in a marked crosswalk when she was struck, but there was evidence that she was not obeying the pedestrian signal at the time.  The jury found Weiss thirty-five percent at fault, and therefore her damages award was reduced by that percentage.[2]  On appeal, the city challenges the instructions the judge gave to the jury regarding the responsibilities that drivers face pursuant to G. L. c. 89, § 11, to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks.  The city argues that under its plain language, the statute does not apply to the circumstances of this case.  We disagree and therefore affirm. Background.  The accident.  According to undisputed trial testimony, Binney Street is a “major traffic artery” that is four to five lanes wide at its intersection with 2nd Street.  For its part, 2nd Street is “more of a side street” that measures only twenty-four feet across.  At the intersection, there is both a crosswalk across 2nd Street and a pedestrian signal (commonly known […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,