Vincelette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

968 P.2d 275 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P fell while entering D. She and her companion had passed through the outer doors leading to the hotel lobby and were crossing over a carpeted entryway. P took a step back to allow her companion to open one of the inner doors. As she did so, she fell and injured her back. P claimed that the cause of the fall was either a defect in the carpeting or negligent maintenance of the carpeting. D denied any defect or negligence. D alleged that P was intoxicated and that her condition was the cause of her fall. P moved for an order excluding testimony from hotel employees that they had been told P was drunk. The District Court did not rule on the motion. D’s maintenance engineer, Larry Vandenbosch, was allowed to testify that he had received a radio call from another employee, who stated that D was drunk. He then went to investigate the accident. He could not remember who placed the radio call, and the unidentified caller did not testify at trial. P moved to strike the testimony as hearsay, but the motion was denied. The District Court held that it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but 'merely to reflect what was said to him and therefore it's not hearsay.' D repeatedly mentioned in its case that P was drunk. D got the verdict and P appealed.