Pauline Civetti v. Mark Petti, Trustee of 6-8 Brook Street Realty Trust, March 9, 2010
2010 Mass. App. Div. 26
Negligence, Property Maintenance, Tort, Personal Injuries, Jury Instructions
The plaintiff (Civetti) rented an apartment from the defendant (Petti). Civetti brought this action against Petti to recover damages for injuries sustained in a fall at her home. Civetti claimed that she fell down a set of stairs because she caught her shoe on a nail that was protruding in the stairway, and that the fall was caused by Petti's negligence in maintaining the property. A jury trial found that Petti was not negligent and judgment was entered in his favor. Civetti appealed, alleging that the trial judge erred in denying her request for jury instructions on the issues of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability, and in denying her proposed verdict slip regarding those issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for the defendant, Petti.
Facts
Civetti and her sister moved into the 2nd floor apartment in August 2003. Another sister lived in the 1st floor apartment. After learning that Petti intended to raise the rent, Civetti and her sister sent Petti a list of items requiring attention on the property. There was no reference to the stairway. Civetti also called the board of health to inspect the premises. On November 13, 2003, the board of health sent Petti a list of needed repairs. This list included the repair of treads and the installation of a railing along a portion of the stairway in question. Petti could not gain access to the property to make the repairs. The tenants had changed the locks and refused access to the workers until after the holidays. On December 13, 2003, Civetti caught her left foot on a nail that was protruding in the stairway, lost her balance, fell forward, and sustained injuries.
Dist./Mun. Cts. R. a. D. A., Rule 19(a) re filing of appeal briefs within 30 days
Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 19(a) - for appeals under Rule 8C, appellant “shall serve and file his or her brief within thirty days after notice from the Appellate Division of receipt of the appeal from the trial court.”
Civetti's appeal was filed more than 30 days after the Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. a., Rule 10, notice of receipt of Rule 8C Appeal and briefing schedule issued to the parties. The Appellate Division elected, in its discretion, to review the appeal on the merits because the parties had fully briefed the issues.
Jury Instructions
The trial judge refused to give jury instructions and special questions requested by Civetti on any breach of either the covenant of quiet enjoyment or the implied warranty of habitability. A trial judge has considerable discretion in framing jury instructions.
Here, the trial judge's decision to limit the instructions and special questions to the cause of action actually pleaded in the complaint was a proper exercise of his discretion. Negligence was the sole focus of the complaint, discovery, motions, and pretrial conference. The two additional causes of action were brought up at trial and may have prejudiced Petti by forcing him to proceed without any opportunity for discovery, pretrial motions, or even trial preparation on these claims.
Civetti also argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that a letter from her doctor to her lawyer regarding her medical condition be redacted prior to submission to the jury. The Appellate Division felt it unnecessary to address this issue and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant, Petti.
- Prepared by AYK
