A plaintiff in a workplace injury case calls a coworker to testify that the workplace was unsafe. The coworker testifies that another employee told them about safety violations at the workplace. The defendant objects on the basis that the coworker lacks firsthand knowledge of the workplace conditions. Should the court admit the coworker’s testimony?
Yes, the coworker’s testimony is admissible because hearsay is allowed from another employee in this instance.
No, the coworker’s testimony is inadmissible because it does not meet a requirement for authentication.
No, the coworker’s testimony is inadmissible because they lack personal knowledge of the workplace conditions they are testifying about.
Yes, the coworker’s testimony is admissible because they have firsthand familiarity with the workplace.
The testimony of the coworker is inadmissible because they lack personal knowledge regarding the safety violations at the workplace, as required under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Personal knowledge means that the witness must have directly perceived the event or condition they are testifying about, such as through sight, hearing, or another of their senses. In this case, the coworker's knowledge is based entirely on hearsay from another employee, rather than their own direct observations. Other options, while related to the rules of evidence, do not apply here because they do not address the requirement for firsthand perception in testimonial evidence.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'personal knowledge' mean in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is hearsay and why is it generally not admissible in court?