Multiple Hearsay in a Hotel Slip-and-Fall Trial
In a Maine Superior Court personal-injury trial, Paula sues Harborview Hotel for injuries from a fall in the lobby. Paula offers three items. First, an incident report prepared by assistant manager Kim 25 minutes after the fall, containing desk clerk Ana's statement: 'The floor had been wet since 6 a.m.' Ana is unavailable; Kim is available. Second, a maintenance log entry by worker Ben: '7:05 a.m. mopped lobby near elevator'; Ben is unavailable, and the log is kept in the ordinary course. Third, paramedic Chris's testimony that Paula said, 'I slipped on the water by the elevator.' Paula testifies and denies making that statement, but Chris recorded it in his run sheet. Harborview objects to all three as hearsay. The judge must rule without a jury present.
1. Is the incident report admissible, including Ana's statement? Analyze multiple hearsay and the business-records exception.
Read the worked answer
The incident report is multiple hearsay: Kim's report and Ana's statement. The report itself may qualify as a business record under FRE 803(6) if Harborview has a policy requiring incident reports, Kim prepared it at or near the time from information she had a duty to report, and the hotel kept it in the regular course. But incident reports prepared for litigation are less likely to qualify. Ana's statement needs its own exception. 'The floor had been wet since 6 a.m.' is not a present sense impression of the fall because Ana was describing a condition she observed earlier; it may be an excited utterance only if Ana was still under the stress of the event, which the facts do not show. It could be a business record if Ana had a duty to report the condition as part of her employment and the statement was based on her knowledge. Without that foundation, Ana's statement is inadmissible hearsay, and the report cannot come in for its truth. Kim could testify to what she saw, but not to Ana's statement unless an exception applies.
2. Is the maintenance log entry admissible?
Read the worked answer
The maintenance log entry is likely admissible under the business-records exception. Ben made the entry at 7:05 a.m. in a log kept in the ordinary course of hotel maintenance, and maintenance staff relied on it. Ben is unavailable, so FRE 803(6) can admit the record if a custodian or qualified witness lays the foundation. The entry is offered to show that the lobby near the elevator was mopped, which is relevant to notice and condition. It is not testimonial and does not violate confrontation because this is a civil case. The main weakness is that the log does not show the floor was still wet at the time of Paula's fall; it only shows a mopping earlier. Harborview can argue relevance and completeness, but the entry itself should be admitted.
3. Is Chris's testimony about Paula's statement admissible if Paula denies making it? Analyze hearsay and impeachment.
Read the worked answer
Chris's testimony is admissible. Paula's statement, 'I slipped on the water by the elevator,' is offered against Paula, so it is an opposing party's statement under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) and is not hearsay. It can be used as substantive evidence even though Paula denies making it. Chris can testify if he has personal knowledge of the statement; his run sheet can refresh his memory or be read under the recorded-recollection rule if the foundation is laid. If Paula denies the statement, the statement also impeaches her, but the party-admission ground is stronger because it does not depend on a prior inconsistent statement under oath. The statement may also qualify as an excited utterance, but the court need not rely on that. Harborview should be allowed to present Chris's testimony.