Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)

Citation: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Parent Document: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578538/berish-v-bornstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,103 chars

Finally, with respect to the admissibility of the evidence supporting the damages award, Bomstein asserts that the master improperly denied his motion to strike evidence relating to damages because (1) the trastees’ expert failed to establish the violation of any legally cognizable standards; and (2) the contractor witnesses were not qualified as expert witnesses and there was no expert testimony that the repair work that the contractors performed was reasonably necessary. The record demonstrates that the trustees’ expert testified that certain aspects of the construction of the condominium development were inadequate, and violated the code and commonly accepted standards of construction and architecture. Although violations of a statute or regulations do not constitute negligence per se, they may provide evidence of negligence. See MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 139-140, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 (1985). Thus, the expert’s testimony provided a proper basis for the master’s conclusion that the unit owners’ association had been damaged by the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text