Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc. 435 S.W.2d 392 (1968)
Vinyard (the daughter-in-law of the president of Vinyard Funeral Home) fell in the Funeral Home's parking lot. She sued for damages. o The Funeral Home argued that they had no idea that the ramp was slippery and so couldn't be held responsible. At trial, the daughter-in-law introduced evidence that people complained to the Funeral Home's employees that the parking lot was slippery when wet. o The Funeral Home argued that this testimony was hearsay and was inadmissible, but the judge allowed it. The Trial Court found for the daughter-in-law and awarded $13k. The Funeral Home appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed. o The Appellate Court noted that the testimony would not be admissible if it was offered to establish that the parking lot actually was slippery. That would be hearsay because you would be relying on the statements of someone who could not be cross-examined in order to prove a fact. o However, the Appellate Court noted that the testimony was admissible if offered only to prove that the employees had been told that the parking lot was slippery. See FRE 105, which covers limited admissibility.
Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0