Eagan v. Marr Scaffolding Co.
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; December 7, 1982; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The trial judge exercised discretion to allow substitute expert witnesses for the plaintiff despite late supplementation of interrogatories, as the defendant was aware of the expected testimony and had the opportunity to depose the witnesses without showing any bad faith from the plaintiff. The judge also appropriately qualified witnesses Farrell and Ryan as experts on scaffolding safety due to their extensive experience and roles in safety regulation and inspection in Massachusetts. The determination of whether the collapsed platform could be "secured" under safety regulations was deemed a factual question, suitable for expert testimony to assist the jury, which the judge rightly permitted. Evidence of safety regulation violations indicated potential negligence, and the trial judge's jury instructions reflected this standard. The judge denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict, new trial, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, affirming that the jury's decisions were supported by the evidence. The orders and judgment from the lower court were affirmed, solidifying the trial judge's rulings and the jury's findings.