Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

As we explain in detail below, this is a case where, contrary to established law and the trial judge’s numerous cautions and rulings, plaintiff’s experienced trial counsel2 improperly argued (1) facts that were not in evidence, (2) concepts of *458liability, despite the parties’ stipulation that the only triable issues related to damages, and (3) that the jury were the conscience of the community and had a duty in this case to safeguard users of public transportation in the future. Plaintiff’s counsel also wil-fully disregarded the judge’s explicit rulings on a number of issues and, by defiantly…