Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Patient or psychotherapist can claim the privilege

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: o did not rent the car goes to pick up the girls who are coming in for the vacation, and he gets in an accident where he is negligent. Plaintiff's sue Hertz (the guy himself is from out of state and he's basically worthless for the money) Hertz's position is they are not responsible for the negligence of this guy b/c he didn't rent the car. Procedural Posture: Hertz obtained summary judgment on the issue that Hertz isn't liable. But plaintiff's argue that the vicarious liability doctrine of joint enterprise applies: Under Colorado law, if you can establish that these two guys were on a joint venture (which they were ski trip), then, when the non-renter was driving the car, was that in furtherance of the joint venture? (Yes he was going to pick up the ski bunnies). The lawyers knew that it was a joint venture, but they induced the renter to make a false affidavit that it had nothing to do with a joint venture, and they knowingly filed that. Issue: Were the documents, implicating that Hertz knew about this joint-enterprise, protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege? Holding: An appropriate case alleging civil fraud requires the privilege to give...
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