Chapter5 - CHAPTER 5 _ Exclusion of Other Relevant Evidence...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CHAPTER 5 _______________________________ Exclusion of Other Relevant Evidence for Reasons of Policy B. SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES Questions for Classroom Discussion [p. 401] 1. Plaintiff sues Defendant, the owner of a convenience store, for negligence after Plaintiff tripped and fell over a can of fruit that had fallen off a shelf on a display near the store’s front door. Defendant admits that Plaintiff tripped in this way, but denies its negligence led to Plaintiff’s fall. To prove Defendant was negligent in allowing the can to fall from the shelf, Plaintiff wishes to present evidence that after the accident, Defendant began placing the cans in staggered (brick-like) stacks rather than one directly on top of the other. Defendant objects. How should the court rule? 2. Same case. Defendant claims the can on which Plaintiff tripped was no longer the store’s property, but had fallen out of a customer’s bag after the customer had paid for his purchases. How should the court rule on Defendant’s objection to the subsequent remedial measures evidence? 3. Same case. Defendant admits that the can fell from the display, but testifies that this was the “best possible way” to stack cans. How should the court rule on Defendant’s objection? 4. Same case. Defendant admits that the can fell from the display. Instead of testifying that this was the “best possible way” to stack cans, Defendant testifies that this method was “safe.” How should the court rule on Defendant’s objection? 5 . Same case. On cross-examination of Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel establishes that when the can fell, the cans in the display were stacked one atop the other. Counsel then asks, “Is this the way you always stack them?” Defendant answers yes. Plaintiff now wishes to offer evidence of the subsequent remedial measure to impeach Defendant. Defendant objects. How should the court rule? 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
C. COMPROMISE AND PAYMENT OF MEDICAL AND SIMILAR EXPENSES Compromise Questions for Classroom Discussion [p. 405] 1. Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence following an intersection collision between their cars after one of them ran a red light. Plaintiff’s car was damaged, though Plaintiff suffered no physical injury. Plaintiff wishes to testify that immediately after the collision, Defendant got out of his car, approached Plaintiff, and said, “It’s my fault. Please let me pay your damages.” Defendant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule? 2. Same facts. Defendant objects on grounds of the compromise rule. How should the court rule? 3. Same case, except that Defendant’s statement to Plaintiff was “It’s my fault, but I don’t want to go through our insurance companies. If you’ll agree to bypass he insurance companies, I’ll pay you now for your damages.” Defendant objects. How should the court rule? 4.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

Chapter5 - CHAPTER 5 _ Exclusion of Other Relevant Evidence...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online