Case BriefEvidence, Unit 10: words as nonhearsay, silenceStensvaag, 2/14/15Identity of CaseSafeway Stores v. Combs, 273 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1960)Page 91 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryMrs. Combs slipped on the ketchup spilled from a broken bottle, and sued Safeway for negligence, failingto post a sign, etc. During trial, plaintiff attempted to have out-of-court statements from Safeway employee and customers stating “hey lady watch out for that ketchup.” Statements were admitted, plaintiff approved. Was admission proper? Statement of the IssueAre the statements “hey lady watch out for the ketchup” hearsay that should be excluded? HoldingNot hearsay, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show whether the plaintiff was put on notice. ReasoningA) “watch out of the ketchup” + M) Plaintiff heard the statements and speaks English plaintiff was put on notice. You don’t have to assume the truth of ketchup on the floor for plaintiff to be put on notice. Also, grammatically that is an imperative which technically doesn’t assert a truth (although it may imply one
View Full Document
Unlocking...