Martin v. City of Cambridge

On June 28, 1999 this negligence/ emotional distress case was before the court for oral argument on plaintiffs’ motions for a new trial and defendant’s cross motion for a set-off and reduction in damages. Plaintiff Michael Martin (“Michael”) argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the jury’s answers to the special verdict questions were inconsistent and the verdict was therefore manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff Kimberly Martin (“Kimberly”) argues that she is entitled to a new trial because the sequence of the questions on the special verdict slip prevented…