Reply With Quote
here blake, a nice resource for you if you wish to continue trying to find counter points
https://www.legalzoom.com/
i mean sure, if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a "routine practice" of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons instead of white patrons, then you could try to use that habit evidence to prove that on this particular occasion, they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black
is that what you think is going to happen, blake? because that is what habit evidence would be referring to. and again, this does nothing to help get the racial sensitivity training admitted.
here blake, a nice resource for you if you wish to continue trying to find counter points
https://www.legalzoom.com/
*Blake logs out
You dug your own holepoor fella
You're pretty desperate for lols after the Netflix debacle huhYou dug your own hole
Yes, it would be habit evidence to prove on this particular occasion they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black.
Yes, would need more witnesses to testify this particular Starbucks did them wrong.
Thanks for confirming, professor.
I think the racial sensitivity training would help back it up. If you don't think it would then you wouldn't waste time running down to the judge to block it. But you said any lawyer worth his salt would hurry to block it.
If this is a that big a deal to you, I'll leave it out of my lawsuit. Big deal. White flag etc
you're not understanding what habit evidence is. read the example i gave above of the driver using a turn signal.
i tried looking up other examples of habit evidence. wikipedia has a useful one too
For example, suppose there was a bar called "Study Hall" located near a college campus. "Happy Hour Joe" is the nickname of a regular patron of this bar, and he frequents the bar every day, Monday through Friday, at approximately 5:30 p.m. on his way home from work. Joe typically has 1 or 2 beers, and then leaves. A party could introduce this evidence of habit if the party wanted to show it was more probable that Joe was at Study Hall on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. A party could also introduce the evidence if the party wanted to show it was more probable that, on his way home Wednesday at 6 p.m., Joe had been drinking.
sure. that would be useful to show that starbucks routinely discriminates.Yes, would need more witnesses to testify this particular Starbucks did them wrong.
but again, that wouldn't suddenly make the racial sensitivty training admissible. that is a subsequent remedial measure.
but the racial sensitivty training is something they did AFTER the fact, hence a SUBSEQUENT remedial measure. this is inadmissible for policy purposes. you WANT companies to fix problematic scenarios.I think the racial sensitivity training would help back it up.
imagine a case where there was a car accident, and the parties claim the city ed up by not putting a stop sign where there should be one. now, the city knows, if they go put a stop sign there a week later, it makes them look guilty (liable) as , so instead they choose not to put a stop sign there until the case is over. so in exchange for preventing that evidence coming up, they're leaving a dangerous condition up, hoping that there will be no accidents there until after this case is over
lawmakers have decided they dont want defendants to fear looking guilty, and instead think its better policy to encourage them to correct a dangerous situation by making that evidence inadmissible. hence, the rule i cited above regarding subsequent remedial measures. it might be relevant as , and could be really strong evidence... but it's inadmissible regardless
as i said just above, i do think it would be relevant evidence, in theory. but due to policy purposes, the rules of evidence have carved a special exemption making subsequent remedial measures inadmissible for most purposes. there are limited scenarios where that evidence is allowed, and only for specific purposes, usually to show ownership or controlIf you don't think it would then you wouldn't waste time running down to the judge to block it. But you said any lawyer worth his salt would hurry to block it.
for example, if starbucks tried to argue "look, we have no way that we could ever train our employees in racial bias" (ergo, no control), then for the limited purpose of disputing that claim, the plaintiff can show evidence of this new training scheduled in may. it's unlikely that such a scenario would ever play out, which is why i said the exceptions are not going to be applicable
no, you're just conflating relevancy with admissibility of evidence.If this is a that big a deal to you, I'll leave it out of my lawsuit. Big deal. White flag etc
Tldr, trivial argument that's not based on anything that will happen. You can declare victory now, big timer.
you learned something today. be proud of that
I learned you like to big-time. Noted for future reference.
Everyone is bigtime to Blake.
you also learned about habit evidence and subsequent remedial measures. that's something to be proud of.
end of day quiz for Blake:
Thomas the Train Company Inc. makes realistic toy trains that connect to their track via a metal line. Thomas was sued after Tina received an electrical shock and was injured when she touched this line. Later, it was determined by Bob and Linda, Tina’s parents, that Thomas was the only company that did not have a cover over these exposed electric lines to prevent accidental exposure, and that Thomas began using a cover on these lines after Tina was hurt.
In what manner may Bob and Linda use this evidence?
A) To show that Thomas should have realized that using covers over the electric lines would have resulted in a safer toy.
B) To show that Thomas was negligent in not covering the electric lines.
C) To show that Thomas’ train was defective because an easily manufactured, different design could have been used.
D) To show that Thomas made the particular toy train that injured Tina.
______
A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing.
Is the resident’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.
(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.
(C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.
(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.
Back to school Blake.
Lol more big timing.
Everyone is bigtime to Blake.
You're an old timer that loves to big time.
There was no twitter or cell phone videos in 1997
Philadelphia Starbucks denied police Sargent access to the bathroom because he wasn't a paying customer.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...327679561.html
Did they ask him to leave
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
