Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
50. How should the court respond?
A consumer has sued the manufacturer of a microwave oven for burn injuries allegedly caused by the manufacturer's negligent failure to warn purchasers of the dangers of heating foods in certain types of containers. The consumer has offered into evidence three letters, all received by the manufacturer before the oven was shipped to the consumer, in which customers had complained of serious burns under circumstances similar to those in the consumer's case. The manufacturer has objected to the letters on the grounds of hearsay and, in the alternative, has asked for a limiting instruction directing that the letters be considered not for the truth of the assertions contained in them but only regarding the issue of notice.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
An out-of-court statement offered for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted will not be considered hearsay. One such purpose is to show the effect on the listener. In a negligence case, a statement may be admissible for the limited purpose of showing notice on the part of the listener.
Regarding limiting instructions, FRE 105 states: «If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose — but not against another party or for another purpose — the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.»
In most cases, the jury is allowed to take tangible exhibits (including writings) into the jury room, if the exhibit was admitted into evidence. If not required by a statute, the trial judge usually has discretion about whether to allow it in a particular case.
C is correct. The three letters offered by the consumer do contain out-of-court statements by previously-injured consumers. If they were being offered for the truth of their contents (that the other consumers were, in fact, burned), the court would need to sustain the manufacturer's objection absent a valid exception to the hearsay rule. However, because they are being offered to establish that the manufacturer was put on notice of the potential dangers of using the microwave, they are considered non-hearsay. A showing of notice supports the negligence claim by suggesting that the manufacturer should have taken action to prevent future injuries. Although the manufacturer's objection should be overruled, the limiting instruction should be given under FRE 105, which requires the court to issue a limiting instruction when evidence is admissible for one purpose (establishing notice) but not another (to prove the truth of the contents of the letters). As such, the court should overrule the objection and give the limiting instruction.
A is incorrect. It would be improper for the court to sustain the objection because the letters are admissible for the purpose of establishing notice, and are therefore non-hearsay. The request for the limiting instruction is not moot because although the letters are admissible to show notice, they are inadmissible for the truth of their contents and FRE 105 ensures that a timely request for a limiting instruction be granted.
B is incorrect. This choice is correct in that the court should overrule the objection, but it should grant the request for a limiting instruction. As explained above, the letters are admissible only if offered for the limited purpose of proving that the manufacturer was put on notice of possible dangers in using the microwave. However, FRE 105 requires the limiting instruction be given.
D is incorrect. Again, it is correct that the objection should be overruled, but the letters are admissible for the purpose of showing notice and may be received as exhibits. The jury may usually take tangible exhibits (including writings) into the jury room they were admitted into evidence.