1. Robert was driving his pickup truck alone when he swerved to avoid an animal in the road. His truck hit a tree, and he was thrown from the truck and through the windshield. He was pronounced dead on the scene. Robert's wife Linda is now suing the truck manufacturer, claiming that Robert had buckled his seat belt, but that the seat belt was faulty and it unlatched when the truck hit the tree, causing Robert to fly out of the truck. The truck manufacturer claims that the seat belt was not faulty, but that Robert had not put on his seat belt for this trip. Linda will testify that she has ridden with Robert over a hundred times in his pickup truck over the past few years and that he always puts on his seat belt. The defendant truck manufacturer objects to this testimony. Should the court admit or preclude Linda's testimony?

Preclude Linda's testimony because she does not have first-hand knowledge of the incident.

Admit Linda's testimony as habit evidence.

Preclude Linda's testimony because it is irrelevant.

Preclude Linda's testimony because it is inadmissible character evidence.

2. Hydra Energy signed a contract with Daystar Natural Gas, by which Daystar agreed to provide Hydra with 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year in exchange for a specified payment. After the first year, Hydra claimed that Daystar had only provided it with 9 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Daystar claimed that it had provided the required 10 billion cubic feet and that Hydra's storage facilities were so poor that it lost 10% of the gas that is stored. In its case in chief, Hydra seeks to admit two court judgments against Daystarone from two years ago and one from five years ago. In each case, a jury found that Daystar had failed to deliver the agreed upon amount of natural gas to an energy company with which it had signed a contract. Daystar objects to this evidence. The evidence is:

Admissible as habit or routine practice evidence.

Admissible, but only if Hydra gives prior notice to Daystar that it intends to use the judgments at trial.

Inadmissible.

Admissible, but only if Daystar first offers evidence of contracts it has signed in which it has successfully delivered the agreed-upon amount of natural gas.

3, Harold is suing Avery claiming that Avery ran a red light in her car and struck him as he crossed the street in a crosswalk. Avery claims that the light was green when she entered the intersection and that Harold was crossing the street against the light. Harold wants to call Ronald, Avery's co-worker. If allowed to testify, Ronald will say that he has ridden with Avery hundreds of times and that Avery has a "habit of being a reckless driver." Ronald will support this claim by testifying that Avery routinely runs red lights, drives at speeds significantly over the speed limit, and is inattentive to the road. Harold objects to this testimony. Should the judge admit or preclude Ronald's testimony?

Admit the evidence, but then allow Avery to call a witness who will testify about what a careful driver she is.

Preclude the evidence as irrelevant.

Preclude the evidence as improper propensity evidence.

Admit the evidence as proper habit evidence.

4. 1 pts

Louis was pulled over for speeding by Officer Gareth of the Tarrytown Police Department. During this encounter, Officer Gareth allegedly ordered Louis out of the car and then struck him six times with his nightstick when Louis insulted him. Louis is now suing Officer Gareth and the Tarrytown Police Department, alleging that Officer Gareth used excessive force against him and that the Tarrytown police department failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline Officer Gareth. In his case-in-chief, Louis seeks to admit evidence that on three prior occasions in the past year, Officer Gareth had beaten motorists after he pulled them over for speeding. This evidence is:

Inadmissible against both Officer Gareth if offered to prove he has a propensity for violence and inadmissible against the Tarrytown Police Department.

Admissible against Officer Gareth to prove he has a propensity for violence and against the Tarrytown Police Department.

Admissible against the Tarrytown Police Department, but not admissible against Officer Gareth if offered to prove he has a propensity for violence.

Admissible against Officer Gareth to prove he has a propensity for violence, but not against the Tarrytown Police Department.

5. As the result of a genetic disorder, Paul must inject himself with medicine after every meal. If he does not inject himself with the medicine, he becomes very ill. Paul is suing Big Medicine Corporation (BMC), the company that makes the medicine Paul uses. According to Paul, he injected BMC's medicine after a meal, but the medicine did not work, and Paul became very ill. Paul alleges that the medicine did not work because BMC failed to include an important ingredient. BMC denies that there was anything wrong with the medicine, and maintains that Paul must have forgotten to inject his medicine. To rebut BMC's allegations, Paul puts his friend Francie on the stand. Francie testifies that she has had 15 meals with Paul and that she recalls seeing him inject himself with his medicine "at least 14 times." Should the court admit this evidence?

Yes, because Paul can put on evidence of specific instances of conduct to rebut BMC's defense.

No, because the evidence does not show sufficiently regular conduct and Paul has offered no corroboration of Francie's testimony.

Yes, because the conduct is sufficiently regular and suggests Paul's habit of using the medication after every meal.

No, because it is character evidence is generally excluded to show past conduct.

6. Evidence could be introduced to show that a driver habitually failed to stop at a certain stop sign as circumstantial evidence that she failed to stop at the time in question.

true

false

7. A plaintiff brought an action against a defendant for property damages, alleging that the defendant's car nicked the side of the plaintiff's truck while the defendant was changing lanes on an expressway. At trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of her good driving record.

Is the evidence admissible?

No, because it is self-serving.

Yes, because it is proper character evidence.

No, because it is improper character evidence.

Yes, because it is habit evidence.