Question

An oil well exploded in Western Colorado, killing three workers. The well was owned by Denver-Carrington, a large multi-national oil company. The families of the workers are suing Denver-Carrington, claiming the company was negligent in maintaining the oil well. In its defense, Denver-Carrington offers two documents. The first is a monthly maintenance report filled out by the company's regional safety inspector, indicating that the oil well was inspected and found to be in good working condition every month from the day it was built until the day it exploded. The second is an e-mail, written by the same inspector to the CEO of the company, which was written a few hours after the incident and provides a physical description of the damage to the pump and the surrounding area. The plaintiffs object to both documents as hearsay. The judge should: a. Preclude both documents. b. Admit the monthly maintenance report but not the e-mail. c. Admit the e-mail but not the monthly maintenance report. d. Admit both documents.

Answer 1

Answer: . b. Admit the monthly maintenance report but not the e-mail.

Step-by-step explanation:

The monthly maintenance report can be admitted because it was done without the extraordinary circumstance of the oil well explosion occurring. This is unlike the email that was only done after the well exploded.

The point it, the regional safety inspector made the maintenance reports without an explosion happening so there is less chance of bias. The email was however sent after the explosion so could be biased in order to avoid a law suit.