Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp.

588 F.2d 551 (1978)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
588 F.2d 551 (1978)

Play video

Facts

A truck, driven by Joseph Slabach (defendant) in the course of his employment with Elcona Homes Corporation (Elcona) (defendant), collided with a Plymouth Valiant at the intersection of two state highways. Four of the Valiant’s occupants were killed in the accident and Cindy Baker (plaintiff) was seriously injured. Baker and the estates of the four deceased occupants (estates) (plaintiffs) brought a negligence action against Slabach and Elcona. The central factual dispute in the case was which vehicle had a green light; however there was no eye witness testimony because Baker could not recall the accident and Slabach testified that sun glare prevented him from seeing the traffic light. At trial, Sgt. John N. Hendrickson, an experienced state patrol officer who had arrived at the scene approximately six minutes after the accident occurred, testified for Slabach and Elcona. Hendrickson was qualified as an accident reconstruction expert and gave testimony describing the accident scene and a statement he took from Slabach at the hospital in which Slabach said he could not see the light, but Slabach gave a description of the Valiant’s speed and location when he first saw it. Hendrickson periodically refreshed his memory from the police report during his testimony. Hendrickson was not questioned about which vehicle he believed had the red light and failed to yield. The court admitted the report into evidence as a past recollection recorded under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 803(5). Included in the report was Hendrickson’s record of Slabach’s statement, and Hendrickson’s notations indicating that the Valiant entered the intersection against a red light and failed to yield right-of-way. Judgment was entered in favor of Slabach and Elcona. Baker and the estates appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the district court erroneously admitted the police report into evidence.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Engel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership