 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast Health Management9/7/2001
T.P.Ry.Co. v. Prewitt's Adm'r, which involved an action for the wrongful death of a young man crossing a railroad track in his car. An issue arose as to whether the railroad's watchman was at his watch at the time of the accident and whether he sounded an alarm. The time of the accident was 2:45 a.m. On cross-examination the plaintiff asked the watchman if he was at his post at 10:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. After the watchman claimed he was at his post, the plaintiff called witnesses to testify that he was not. The Court reversed the trial court and ruled that if a witness is cross-examined as to a collateral fact his answer is conclusive.
In the case sub judice, the issue is whether Dennis had the necessary policy and procedures in place and whether she requested or instructed Howell to backdate a document. In her testimony, Dennis broadly denied that the incident took place, but more importantly, she testified that everything was in order during the investigation. We believe the case sub judice is distinguishable from Prewitt because in Prewitt it was irrelevant whether the watchman was at his watch at any other time other than when the accident occurred. In the present case, whether all the hospital's necessary paperwork was in order during the investigation was clearly relevant. The determination of whether a matter is collateral is for the trial court to determine and thus its decision is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing this testimony by Haley.
The hospital's final claim of error is that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of character evidence. The hospital argues that two former employees, Linda Frey and Joann Ashby, testified for the purpose of showing Dennis' lack of character for truth and veracity. The hospital argues that the sole purpose of their testimony was to inflame the jury and thus it should have been excluded.
After reviewing the record, it is clear that Frey and Ashby served a purpose other than inflaming the jury. Both Frey and Ashby were able to corroborate Cotton's and Howell's testimony that the work environment changed after Dennis' conviction for shoplifting. More specifically, they both were able to support Cotton's and Howell's version of the facts that Dennis wrongfully singled them out and treated them significantly different after the conviction.
After the proper foundation had been presented, both Frey and Ashby were asked to give their opinion of Dennis' reputation in the community. Both of them testified that she had a reputation for dishonesty. Kentucky Rules of Evidence 608 states:
Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to the limitation that the evidence may refer only to general reputation in the community.
Both Frey and Ashby satisfied the requirements of KRE 608, thus their testimony was properly admitted.
Having found no reversible error, the judgment of the McLean Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|