 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
per article was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that Gary, Indiana was the most dangerous city in the United States for crime in 1998. Plaintiff argues that he was "offering the article as further evidence that he was 'transferred' to a place he believed to be a very undesirable place to live or work and was, in fact, constructively discharged." (Plaintiff's merit brief, at 44.) Plaintiff adds, "The article was simply a piece of information plaintiff relied upon in consideration of his constructive discharge." Id. To the extent the article was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it was inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, to the extent the article was being offered for the reasons stated by plaintiff, it was arguably irrelevant with respect to his constructive discharge claim, as it went to plaintiff's subjective opinion regarding Gary, Indiana. Plaintiff's subjective belief regarding Gary, Indiana was not relevant to the issue of whether he was constructively discharged. See Cline v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (Sept. 18, 2000), Washington App. No. 99CA14 (noting that an objective standard is applied in the constructive discharge inquiry).
{ } Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in not permitting plaintiff's counsel to question witnesses regarding the desirability of working in Gary, Indiana. The trial court sustained objections to this testimony on the basis that the opinions of the witnesses regarding the city of Gary, Indiana, were not relevant to the inquiry in this case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard, and we therefore find plaintiff's argument on this matter to be without merit.
{ } Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court erred in excluding photographs that plaintiff had taken of Gary, Indiana. In his merit brief, plaintiff does not assert why it was error for the trial court to not allow the admission of the photographs. In his reply brief, plaintiff contends that the photographs were relevant to the inquiry as to what a reasonable person would have felt under the circumstances. Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding from evidence the photographs that plaintiff took of Gary, Indiana.
{ } Based on the foregoing, we overrule plaintiff's fourth assignment of error.
{ } In his fifth assignment of error, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence on the basis of hearsay. Plaintiff asserts that it was error for the trial court to preclude testimony of Mr. Pini regarding an alleged Abbott memorandum indicating that employees over 50 years old with 20 years of service should be encouraged to take early retirement. The trial court determined that testimony of Mr. Pini regarding the alleged memorandum was inadmissible under Evid.R. 602. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this testimony, and we therefore overrule plaintiff's fifth assignment of error.
{ } Plaintiff alleges in his sixth assignment of error that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a prior verdict against two of the named defendants for age discrimination. In his brief, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erroneously did not permit the discussion of the "Fitch" case at trial. Plaintiff argues that evidence of a prior verdict against two of the defendants was admissible under Evid.R. 404(B), which states:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|