Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff fell in the parking lot of the defendant, Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc’s (the “defendant”) funeral home. Plaintiff’s fall occurred when the paved surface on which she was walking changed from a rough, unfinished one, to a slick, sealed surface that was slippery when, as it was that evening, wet.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When evidence is admitted because of the relevance of the fact that the statement was made, that evidence is not hearsay and may be considered substantively.
If the fact that a statement has been made is relevant to a material issue in the case and it is immaterial that the statement be true or false, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether evidence of the condition of the parking lot was sufficient to show both that it was (1) unreasonably dangerous to visitors, and (2) not discoverable by visitors?
Whether statements made by witnesses at trial regarding complaints they had received from others about the parking lot’s slickness were hearsay, and thus improperly admitted?
Whether evidence of other accidents in different areas of the parking lot was improperly admitted?
Held. The evidence of fourteen percent grade and a smooth, wet surface were enough for a jury to find unreasonable danger. The change in surface from rough to smooth and the dim lighting were enough for a jury to find that the condition was difficult to detect.
No. The statements were admitted to show knowledge by the defendant that the surface was slippery when wet, not to show that the surface was in fact slick when wet.
No. Evidence of other accidents may be admitted when the court holds that its probative value outweighs any danger of unfair surprise or confusion of the issues, and adequate opportunity for cross examination of the witness is afforded.
Discussion. The court properly admitted testimony of what others had said regarding the condition of the parking lot because such testimony was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, namely that the parking lot was slick when wet. Instead, the testimony was offered for the fact that the statements were made, which showed that defendant had knowledge of the condition of the parking lot, a fact that needed to be proved in order to show liability on the part of the defendant. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay, but rather evidence that could be considered substantively in terms of the defendant’s state of mind.