Popular in Evidence & Legal Reasoning
Popular in Department
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hannah Notetaker on Monday September 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 3380 at Auburn University taught by Dr. Clifton Perry in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views.
Reviews for Evidence 9/15
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/19/16
9/15/16 Huddleston Case buys and sells B&W tvs charged with buying and selling stolen property argues he didn’t know it was stolen had prior acts of buying from the same individual for cheap and in large qualities 404b requires similarity of the acts need suﬃciency to support a ﬁnding cheap large quantities all bought from same party who got them through theft not substantiated with bill of sale so the evidence that it was stolen is admissible Rule 406: Habit; routine practice evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness must demonstrate that it almost always happens demonstrate that the individual would have likely done it this time because they habitually do it Rule 407: subsequent remedial measures when measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction but the court may admit this evidence for another purpose such as impeachability, proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures - aka it is not feasible to do it that way then you prove that you can ﬁx it in that way; or if you sue someone because your banister is broken and they argue they don’t own the banister but they ﬁxed it last time so its their fault 3rd parties note: There is a vender who sells food in student center, AU who discriminates who to let in the student center to sell food, and then there is you, a student. You can go after the vendor or you can go after AU because they did not test the vendor ﬁrst like they should do. So Student v. AU. The minute the suit comes about then the vendor changes their food to a way that someone can never get sick… so it is a subsequent measure so you cannot bring it up to sue the vendor. However, you can mention the vendor change in your suit against AU. Then, AU will go after the vendor but since the vendor made the changes, they cannot use the change against the vendor. 407 protects the vendor but not AU. Tuer Case 50 year old man need coronary bypass hospital’s process is to give some sort of medicine up to 2 1/2 hours before the operation because this medicine allows for 10% chance that the anesthesiologist could accidentally and negligently hit you can you would bleed out… so they thin the blood just enough doctor doesn’t come by at the time he is supposed to and they ignore this fact and go through with the procedure and the man has cardiac arrest, survives it, but then dies the next day people who did survive him are mad and bring about a wrongful death suit plaintiﬀ sues defendant for wrongful death of victim even if it was in negligence policy said this was proper method - saying it isn’t feasible to do it any other way
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'