George v. Jordan Marsh Co. - 2 Mass. App. Ct. 848, 312 N.E.2d 216 (1974)

Rule:

It is the duty of counsel to bring to the judge's attention with sufficient clarity the grounds upon which the admission of the evidence is sought.

Facts:

This was an action of tort for the intentional infliction of mental distress. By a prior decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, Irenee George Jr.’s cause of action was recognized and an order sustaining a demurrer to her declaration reversed. A subsequent trial of the case resulted in a jury verdict for Jordan Marsh Co. The sole exception argued to this court concerns the judge's exclusion of certain evidence, to wit, a letter sent to Jordan Marsh Co. by George’s attorney which read in relevant part as follows: "May I advise you [Jordan Marsh Co.] that your alleged claim is absolutely groundless, as you well know; that your persistent dunning tactics are obviously designed to harass and intimidate . . . Mrs. George Jr.; that same are having the intended effect of injuring her health and well being; . . . ." George conceded that the letter was not admissible for the truth of the statements contained therein but argued that it was nevertheless relevant and competent to show that the defendant had reason to believe that George’s health was failing as a result of its alleged harassment and consequently that its subsequent conduct was "extreme and outrageous.

Issue:

Did the trial judge err in excluding the letter sent to Jordan Marsh Co.?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Although the letter may have been admissible for the limited purpose alleged by George, there was nothing to show that George restricted her offer to that purpose. To the contrary, it appears from the bill of exceptions that the letter was offered without limitation or explanation. In the absence of any limitation on the offer by the plaintiff, it was proper for the court to exclude it.