Evidence keyed to Fisherback
0 of 3 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
Casey sued a chimney sweeping company for personal injury and property damages resulting from an explosion in his chimney the evening after the company had cleaned it. The explosion, which occurred when the he lit a fire in the fireplace, caused minor damage to the chimney, roof, and to the Casey, who was hit by falling bricks. As evidence that he assumed the risk of injury, the company offers to have its foreman testify that he had told the Casey not to use the fireplace for 24 hours to allow certain chemicals to evaporate.
Is the foreman’s proposed testimony hearsay?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Mary sued Big Jim for damages suffered when a load of bricks fell off his truck directly in front of her while she was driving on a highway. Mary charged that Big Jim was negligent in supplying his truck with a defective load chain clamp, which helped tie the load to the bed of the truck, and in failing to secure the load properly on the truck. Mary calls a witness who testifies that he was formerly employed as a truck driver and is an acquaintance of Big Jim. The witness further testifies that immediately prior to the accident he had coffee with Big Jim at a café, and mentioned to the defendant that the tie chains holding the load of bricks looked kind of loose.
Assuming proper objection by the Big Jim’s attorney, such testimony is:Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Patrick sued Dustin to rescind a contract for fraud and damages. Patrick alleged in his complaint that, pursuant to a written contract, he had purchased a business from Dustin in reliance on Dustin’s fraudulent representations as to the value of the business’s inventory and cash on hand. At trial, without objection, Patrick introduced a written contract, which included recitals of facts containing the statement: “the company is solvent, with inventory and cash assets valued at $200,000” and a boilerplate integration clause (i.e., “no other representations have been made,” etc.).
Patrick proposes to testify that during negotiations Dustin said the real value of the business in cash and inventory was about $500,000, but that tax laws made it inexpedient to recite the real value. Dustin’s attorney objects.
The offered evidence is:Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.