Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)

Citation
Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
Parent Document
Clegg v. Vaughan, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 134 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1997-06-27

Full Text

857 chars
Without Vaughan’s testimony or any other evidence of the effect of the sanitary code violations on her use and enjoyment of the second floor apartment, this Court could not properly determine the percentage by which the value of her tenancy was diminished. It is well established that a pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of procedure, evidence and substantive law as litigants with counsel. International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841, 847 (1983); McGowan v. Director of the Division of Employment, 388 Mass. 1003, 1004 (1983); Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 141 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. den., 476 U.S. 1172 (1986). While Vaughan was certainly not required to present expert testimony with respect to her damages, she was obligated to introduce some evidence beyond a mere list of the sanitary code violations in her unit.