Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

example inadmissible in a civil rights case in which

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: cted to the testimony on the ground that it related to a "transaction" between the plaintiff and a party deceased at the time of the trial. Trial judge overruled the objection, Court of Appeals reversed holding that the collision was a "transaction" On appeal. Was the collision between the motorcycle and the automobile a transaction under Florida's Dead Man's Statute? Holding: The collision was not a transaction within the meaning of Florida's Dead Man's Statute. Like Texas, Florida decided to construe the word "transaction" narrowly: involving a mutuality or concert of action. Does not include the circumstances "surrounding an involuntary or fortuitous collision between two motor vehicles driven by two complete strangers". Key! The exclusion of such testimony will work greater injustices by preventing recovery on legitimate claims as against the view that admissibility might result in the establishment of fraudulent claims against decedents' estates. The credibility of the testifying survivor may certainly be evaluated by the jury and tested...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online