0405

I think the evidence is not relevant because it is not “material.” As you should remember from torts, this is a respondeat superior case. The only issue is whether the driver was in acting in the scope of her employment. Her carelessness tends to prove the issue of negligence, which is not disputed and is therefore not “of consequence” to the determination of the case. Whether an issue is material (of consequence at trial) is not a simple task. It is determined by looking at the elements of a cause of action, the complaint, the answer, any rulings by the court on summary judgment or under Rule 12, and any stipulations or concessions made during the proceedings. In this problem, Big Red admitted most facts and argues only that Arden was not acting in the scope of her employment.  

Why would the parties limit the case this way? Why would a defense attorney concede that the driver was negligent? Contrary to what you may believe, lawyers are not free to dispute everything and make the other side prove it. The defense attorney was ethically bound to admit facts that were true.

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0405.

Does it matter if Arden was looking at Google Maps to find the delivery address, or looking at a Li’l Bub video someone sent her on Facebook?

Maybe.  An argument can be made that if she were looking at personal Facebook stuff, she was not acting within the scope of her employment, but it’s a pretty weak argument -- but then, weak is all you need to meet the minimal relevance standard of Rule 401.

Look Problem 4C. You are the prosecution, offering the emails into evidence. If the defense objects that they are irrelevant, you will need to respond with an explanation to the judge why it is relevant (connected to a material issue). Prepare such an explanation, and then click here to continue.