Reeve v. Dennett

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1887 · Evidence

145 Mass. 23 (1887)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencesimilar occurrencescollateral issuesconditional admissionnonexpert testimonyrelevancepain testimonyfraud

Facts

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant's dental invention was only a mixture of old ingredients and was worthless for deadening pain in tooth filling. To rebut that claim, the defendant called patients who testified that fillings done by the defendant using the invention were practically painless, while similar operations previously had been very painful. The plaintiff objected that this testimony raised collateral issues and might be explained by causes other than the compound. One witness's testimony about another dentist's painless operations was admitted subject to later proof that the dentist had used the compound, but no request was later made to strike it or instruct the jury to disregard it.

Issue

Was testimony from patients that tooth fillings were painless when the defendant used his compound admissible to show that the compound had a tendency to deaden pain, even though the testimony might invite collateral inquiries or admit of other explanations? Also, was conditionally admitted testimony left in the case absent a later request to strike it or instruct the jury to disregard it?

Rule

Lay witnesses may testify to their experience of painlessness in dental operations; such testimony is admissible to prove a compound's tendency to deaden pain when the fact sought to be proved is very unlikely to have any other explanation than the fact in issue and may be proved or disproved without unreasonably protracting the trial. An objection that evidence is collateral is a practical one, not absolute. When evidence is admitted subject to a condition, the opposing party must request that it be struck or that the jury be instructed to disregard it if the condition is not later fulfilled.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a civil fraud trial in Boston, Mara Lin claims that Owen Pike falsely said his new skin-numbing spray made laser tattoo removal nearly painless. To rebut evidence that the spray is useless, Owen calls six former clients who each testify that sessions using the spray barely hurt, while their earlier tattoo-removal sessions without it had been sharply painful.

Should the judge admit the clients' testimony?

Explanation. The testimony is admissible. Under the majority's rule, a witness need not be an expert to say whether a procedure hurt. Similar-occurrence evidence may be received when the fact to be proved is very unlikely to have another explanation than the fact in issue and can be proved or disproved without unreasonably protracting the trial. The clients' testimony that the procedure was practically painless when the spray was used tends to show the spray had some tendency to deaden pain.