Question

Dominic sues gemalt, inc. for negligence. at trial, dominic testifies that he heard francis, a manager at gemalt, say that he thought gemalt was acting carelessly. dominic's testimony about francis will most likely be:

Answer 1

From the question, Dominic testimony about Francis will not be admitted as evidence because it is merely hearsay. There is no way Dominic could substantiate what he had in the court.

Besides, no way the court could also ascertain whether Dominic statement is true or not since all his statement is baseless.

Evidence given by a witness of which they have no understanding or specific knowledge of, but instead their testimony or statement is centered on what they hear from others is called HEARSAY.

Hearsay evident is also known as second hand evidence since it based on rumor or gossip. The evidence may be allowed in court to prove that an individual made a statement but not the truth that the statement contains.

Of course you can tell the court what you heard and testify that what you heard was said to you by others, in this case, your testimony would not be seen as evidence because the actual fact of the story is not established.

When an individual is testifying in court, the fundamental rule is that they can only offer information that they has a direct knowledge of.

Simply put, according to the hearsay rule, second hand testimony is not admissible in court

KEYWORDS:

• hearsay
• second hand
• evidence
• statement

Answer 2

the answer to this question is not admitted as evidence because it is hearsay.
Hearsay is the type of court evidence that is inadmissible because it deemed as something that less reliable.
In this case, there is no way the court could now/prove whether he's telling the truth or not because all of his statement is based on his individual recollection.