Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Munson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P.

    1:22-cv-0269-JRG-SKL (E.D. Tenn. May. 20, 2024)

    Defendant does not identify any particular prior incidents it seeks to exclude; rather, it contends Plaintiffs “have no evidence of any substantially similar incidents at Wal-Mart.” [Id.; see also Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-545, 2008 WL 2704443, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2008) (“The Sixth Circuit has recognized that ‘prior accidents must be ‘substantially similar' to the one at issue before they will be admitted into evidence

  2. Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Shaya

    679 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Mich. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    Thus, based on the representations of Roche in its Response briefs, the Court finds that Roche does not need to demonstrate that proposed Exhibit Nos. 187 and 188 meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the Exhibits are not being offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted and thus are not subject to the hearsay exclusion. See Maike, 613 F. Supp. 3d at 999 (citing Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-545, 2008 WL 2704443, at *3-4 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2008) ("[H]earsay concerns do not serve as a basis of precluding the [emails] to the extent such evidence is offered to establish notice or Defendant's knowledge."); United States v. Boyd, 640 F.3d 657, 664 (6th Cir. 2011) ("Statements offered to prove the listener's knowledge are not hearsay."); United States v. Smith, No. 3:14CR-99-JHM, 2016 WL 589890, at *11 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2016)).

  3. QVX, Inc. v. MJC America, Ltd.

    NO. 08-3830 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2012)

    "Statements that arguably constitute hearsay may still be offered when offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show notice." Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., No. 05-545, 2008 WL 2704443, at * 3 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 3, 2008) (quotation omitted); see also Willis v. Kia Mtrs. Corp., No. 07-062, 2009 WL 2351766, at *2 (N.D. Miss. July 29, 2009) (finding that customer complaints were not hearsay when they were "not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., that the incidents actually happened the way they were reported), but rather they [were] being offered for notice of a potential problem with the Sportage's door latch and/or seatbelt"); Olson, 410 F. Supp. 2d at 863 ("While the customer complaints are not admissible as evidence of a defect, the Court finds that the customer complaints are admissible to show that Ford received such complaints and was on notice of the allegations set forth in the complaints."). Soleus contends that because this is a breach of contract case and not a tort case, QVC's notice of a potential defect is not at issue here.

  4. Potts v. Martin Bayley, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08-CV-00015-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2011)

    There is some precedent for excluding warranty reports and records on the basis of hearsay. See Clevenger v. CNH America, LLC, 340 F. App'x 821, 825 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming district courts exclusion of accident reports as inadmissible under F.R.E. 803(6)); Crouch v. Teledyne Cont. Motors, Inc., 2011 WL 2650879, at *2 (S.D. Ala. July 6, 2011) (rejecting argument that warranty records are admissible under F.R.E. 803(6)); Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., 2008 WL 2704443, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2008) (excluding warranty records under the business exception rule because "[e]ven though the warranty claim records themselves may satisfy the business records exception, the underlying statements made by customers would still need an independent basis for admisibility."). While the Court recognizes the inherent hearsay issue present in many of the warranty records, the Court does not believe that all of the warranty documents suffer from this issue.

  5. Crouch v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 10-00072-KD-N (S.D. Ala. Jul. 6, 2011)

    However, although the documents are business records, they contain hearsay. Galloway v. Big G Express, Inc., 2008 WL 2704443 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2008) ("Even though the warranty claim records themselves may satisfy the business records exception, the underlying statements made by customers would still need an independent basis for admissibility.") Therefore the claims are not admissible to the extent they are offered to establish a defective condition. However, the evidence is admissible to establish knowledge to prove plaintiffs' claim of negligent failure to warn because as such it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

  6. Barnes v. Cus Nashville, LLC

    No. 3:09-cv-0764, JURY DEMAND (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 29, 2011)

    Defendant cites a number of cases for the proposition that only prior incidents that are substantially similar to the one at issue can be admissible. Id. (citing Rye v. Black Decker Mfg. Co., 889 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1989); Koloda v. Gen. Motors Parts Div., Gen. Motors Corp., 716 F.2d 373 (6th Cir. 1983); Galloway v. Big G. Express, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-545, 2008 WL 2704443 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2008)). Defendant also asserts that the relevance of prior incidents depends on their proximity in time to the incident in question, id. (citing Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir. 2007)), and that incidents after the one in question are irrelevant under Rule 401, id. (citing Croskey v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 532 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2008); Ellis ex rel. Perdergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2006)).