McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Citation
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Parent Document
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-04-08
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
Full Text
826 charsWe agree with the plaintiff that the codes were admissible. See id. However, the failure to introduce the relevant portions of the codes in evidence does not require a new trial. Although the code provisions established a duty on the part of the defendant to remove snow and ice, the defendant never challenged that it owed the plaintiff that duty. The only issue was whether the defendant violated its duty and that was determined by the jury. Further, the relevant portions of the codes were read to the jurors, and they were instructed properly that a violation of the codes was to be considered as evidence of negligence. Thus, even though the codes were not introduced in evidence, the jurors were aware of them and their significance. A new trial is not warranted based on the failure to introduce the codes in evidence.