Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
588 F.2d 551 (1978)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Joseph Slabach (defendant) was driving westbound in a semitruck for his employer, Elcona Homes (Elcona) (defendant). At an intersection, Slabach collided with a car traveling southbound. Four of the car’s occupants died, and one, Cindy Baker (plaintiff), was severely injured. Police sergeant John Hendrickson, a 28-year veteran with extensive experience investigating automobile accidents, arrived six minutes later. Slabach told Hendrickson that he had not seen the traffic light’s color due to sun glare. However, Slabach recalled seeing traffic moving through the intersection on his road but not on the car’s road. Hendrickson recorded Slabach’s statement in the accident report. Hendrickson also recorded his own determination that the car was at fault because it ran a red light. Baker and the estates of the four deceased occupants (plaintiffs) sued Slabach and Elcona. At trial, the key dispute was which vehicle had a green light. Baker could not remember the accident. Slabach repeated the same information he had given to Hendrickson. On cross-examination, Baker’s attorneys implied that Slabach had changed his account of events. Hendrickson testified about the accident scene but did not testify which vehicle he believed had the right-of-way. The court also admitted Hendrickson’s accident report into evidence over Baker’s objection. The jury found for Slabach and Elcona. Baker appealed, arguing that parts of the accident report, specifically Hendrick’s assignment of fault and Slabach’s statements, were inadmissible hearsay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Engel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.