Case Law
Outlines 4 examples under which a duty of care arises.
Savage v. Jones
All prongs of 702 must be met by a preponderance of the evidence.
Davis v. Adams
Rule 703 does not permit experts to be used as conduits to hearsay.
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ
Outlines 4 prongs of negligence.
Lynch v. Miller
Plaintiff must prove all elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence
Jeff v. Wario's Toolkit
Kane Software prohibits experts from stating opinions not contained within their expert report but it does not prohibit them from testifying to the underlying facts and data supporting their conclusion.
Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri
Experts cannot be used as weapons in trial by ambush and cannot state an opinion not contained within their expert report.
Kane Software Inc. v. Mars Investigations
The fact that a particular electronic communication is listed as coming from a specific individual is sufficient foundation to determine its admissibility.
Ginger v. Heisman
Hearsay is only implicated when a statement is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Chambers v. By The Book Publishing
Outlines the two elements of causation.
Yanka v. Edwards Industries
Because hearsay is only implicated when a statement is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, a statement is not hearsay if the party presenting it disputes the truth of the statement, regardless of any "truth value" the statement may have.
State v. B.F. De La Porta
A jury may consider whether the defendant followed their own policies but it is not dispositive.
Pandya v. Schumock
A risk being foreseeable does not require that the defendant could anticipate the precise target of the harm, it simply requires that the defendant should have foreseen the general type of risk.
Haug v. Kolb
So long as an expert can sufficiently explain their expertise, training and methods Tarot Card Readers v. Merrell Dow shall not be used to prohibit credible expert testimony. Such challenges of credibility should be left for cross examination.
Omni-Directional Solutions v. Little Bird Word
To determine if a given precaution is neccesary, on must compare the burden of implementing that precaution to the probability that harm occurs absent the precaution and the extent of the harm.
Faris v. Steinhauer
Compliance is not necessarily dispositive and a defendant is not absolved of liability if standards did not contemplate the situation at issue.
Iacomini v. Chapman
Rules concerning character evidence apply to companies as well as individuals.
Coburn Camera Crew v. Ellicott City
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay use for a statement.
Farrant v. Westaway
801(d)2 applies to the declarant party’s employee if the statement is made within the scope of that employment relationship.
Kaplan v Sikora
Defendant's that pursue an affirmative defense must prove all elements of that affirmative defense by a preponderence of the evidence.
Bennett v. O'Herin
To prove unavoidable accident as an affirmative defense the defendant must prove that the harm would have occurred even if there was zero negligence on behalf of the defendant.
Carter v. Meyer
Reverse character evidence is not automatically objectionable.
Krent v. Lions Inc
The fact that an actor's conduct was not negligent after an emergency arose does not absolve them of liability if they created the emergency.
Hopson v. Dawson
A company is responsible for all acts of its employees within the scope of their employment.
McMahon v. Mohan
Intervening and superseding causation doctrine relieves defendants of wrongdoing when the superseding causation was itself sufficient to produce the plaintiff's harm, was not foreseeable to defendant, and was not a direct result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct
Purdue v. Waldie