As we have seen in our reading, evidentiary issues can be very challenging. Because I realize that evidentiary rules discussed in our textbook can be rather confusing, I think it is important to construct a few fact patterns to illustrate the concepts at work.

In the following three fact patterns which are drawn from the Instructor’s Edition of the text-book, I would like you to play the role of a “judge” for a day and make a ruling on these three fact patterns. In ruling on these three fact patterns, please refer to the text-book and provide an initial response of 500 words and two responses of 250 each.

1.Quincy sued Edwards for injuries suffered in a fall on the sidewalk of Edwards' home. Quincy's complaint alleged that the walk was covered with a thick sheet of ice, which had been negligently left there for several days by Edwards. In his answer, Edwards set forth that the ice formed overnight and that Quincy fell before Edwards had a chance to remove it. During the trial, Dr. Carter, a physician who treated Quincy after the fall and whose office was next door to Edwards' home, testified that he saw Quincy fall and that the ice, which had been there for several days, was at least two inches thick. On cross-examination, counsel for Edwards asked Dr. Carter the following question: "During your treatment of Quincy on the day in question, is it not true that he told you his fall resulted from a loss of equilibrium after he suffered from dizziness?" Quincy’s attorney objects to this line of question ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATEMENT ON HEARSAY GROUNDS. How would you rule?

2.Quincy sued Edwards for injuries suffered in a fall on the sidewalk of Edwards' home. Quincy's complaint alleged that the walk was covered with a thick sheet of ice, which had been negligently left there for several days by Edwards. In his answer, Edwards set forth that the ice formed overnight and that Quincy fell before Edwards had a chance to remove it. Quincy's housekeeper testified that Quincy was on bed rest and unable to work for a month because of the sprained back which he suffered when he fell. About two months after Quincy returned home from the hospital, she stated that he told her, "My back was really killing me after the fall. The pain was excruciating. I thought it would be a miracle if I ever stood up again." Edwards' counsel then moved to strike the housekeeper's testimony ON HEARSAY GROUNDS. How would you rule?

3.In a suit between Peters and Daniels arising out of an automobile accident, Barnett, a bystander, was called to the stand to testify that Daniels had driven through a red traffic light immediately before the collision. On cross-examination, Daniels' attorney wants to get Barnett to admit that he made a prior statement to Franklin, a friend, that he was not sure if the traffic signal was yellow or red when Daniels drove through the intersection. How should the trial court rule ON A HEARSAY OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRIOR STATEMENT?