Simmons, Inc. v. Pinkerton’s, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
762 F.2d 591 (1985)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Simmons, Inc. (Simmons) (plaintiff) hired Pinkerton’s, Inc. (Pinkerton’s) (defendant) to provide security for Simmons’s warehouse. A fire caused extensive damage to the warehouse, and the Indiana fire marshal determined that the fire was most likely caused by William Hayne, a Pinkerton’s security guard assigned to the warehouse. At the request of Pinkerton’s, Hayne took a polygraph, but the results were inconclusive. Hayne agreed to take a second polygraph but failed to do so. Nevertheless, when a Pinkerton’s investigator made inquiries, Hayne said he had taken and passed the second polygraph. Simmons sued Pinkerton’s for property damage. At trial, while cross-examining Haynes, Simmons’s attorney asked Hayne, over the objection of Pinkerton’s, if Hayne had lied about taking the second polygraph. Hayne admitted to lying to the Pinkerton’s investigator. The district court permitted this line of questioning not as substantive evidence, but as evidence attesting to Hayne’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 608(b). The district-court jury found in favor of Simmons. Pinkerton’s appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cudahy, 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.