![]() ![]() Thoren answered without objection and identified one individual, Dick Moscrop. Thoren was served with an interrogatory that asked him to identify all witnesses who arrived at the scene of the accident immediately or shortly after it happened. He alleged that the subcontractors on the job negligently created a dangerous condition which caused his injury. Plaintiff Walter Thoren tripped and fell over a wire and injured his arm. ![]() Thoren was a construction site trip-and-fall case. The most cited case on this issue is Thoren v. Judges generally do not rule on this type of motion until they are presented with specific facts related to a specific piece of evidence. This motion is usually broadly stated to exclude all documents and evidence not produced in discovery. When trial arrives, admissibility issues can present themselves if the claims, documents and witnesses we plan to rely on have not been specifically identified in our formal discovery responses.Ī common motion in limine is the motion to exclude evidence not disclosed or produced during discovery. We are motivated to share evidence that supports our case, in an effort to get the case fully evaluated and hopefully settled. We all have a basic understanding of our obligations to disclose relevant evidence requested in discovery. It is only when a case is tried that we truly see the impact that our answers to discovery have on the case. At trial a party’s answers to both written and oral discovery are scrutinized. In our practices the vast majority of our cases settle prior to trial. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |