Factual Background: Vicky L. Kurtz, individually and as administratix of Desiree Smith's ("Decedent's") estate, brought suit against Jim's Custom Collision, Inc. . The factual background and procedural history of this case are as follows. In October 2012, Jim's inspected and rotated the tires on Deidre Steiner's ("Steiner's") vehicle. Jim's ordered new tires for Steiner's vehicle and notified her when those new tires arrived; however, she declined to have them installed. On February 28, 2013, Decedent Smith was a passenger in Steiner's vehicle which was traveling on State Route 153 in the area commonly known as Boone Mountain. A winter storm created a virtual "whiteout" in that area. Amber Boyer ("Boyer"), who was traveling in the opposite direction, testified she saw Steiner's car, which was traveling between 50 and 60 miles per hour, sliding into her lane for approximately two seconds. She took evasive action to avoid a collision. N.T., 4/12/17, at 208-210. Steiner's vehicle continued to slide and collided with the vehicle directly behind Boyer. Decedent died as a result of injuries suffered during the crash. Boyer was called as a defense witness to blame the accident on bad driving during a snowstorm rather than on bad tire rotation. Appellant instituted the instant lawsuit alleging Jim's improperly rotated the tires on Steiner's car. Appellant later amended her complaint to add products liability claims against additional defendants. 1. Kurtz calls Andrew Jencks, a neighbor of Jim's Collisions for 15 years to testify that "Jim is careless . I've seen him be careless with tire rotation at least ten times." a. The testimony is admissible as it is based on personal knowledge. b. The testimony is admissible only if Jim testifies first. c. The testimony is admissible as habit. d. The testimony is inadmissible. 2. While Andrew is on the stand and undergoing cross-examination, may Jim's counsel ask " isn't true that you have failed to pay taxes for 15 years , falsely claiming you have no income ?" a. No, this may be proved only if there is a conviction. b. No, as this is a civil case. c. Yes, as long as there is a good faith basis for the question. d. Yes, to prove that the tires were not properly rotated. 3. Assume for this question only that Andrew is permitted to testify as set forth in question 1. May Jim's lawyer then call Sally Smithers to testify that "Andrew is dishonest and a wife beater. I've known his family for years." a. No, as character is only admissible in a criminal case. b. No, as only experts may comment on the credibility of another witness. c. Yes, giving the testimony in its entirety. d. Yes , but only as to Andrew "Andrew is dishonest . I've known him and his family for years . 4. Assume for this question that Andrew is cross-examined as set forth in question 2 and says " that never happened ." a. If tax papers exist to prove this, the Judge must instruct the jury that Andrew is a liar. b. If tax papers exist to prove this, the judge may instruct the jury that Andrew is a liar. c. Jim is stuck with the answer and gets no jury instruction. d. Jim is stuck with the answer but gets the instruction if he can produce a live witness from the Tax Bureau to prove Andrew falsified his income. 5. Boyer, as noted in the FACTUAL BACKGROUND, intends to testify that Steiner was traveling 50 to 60 miles per hour on a road with a 35 mile per hour speed limit and that this happened in a snowstorm . She claims that she saw this for " maybe two seconds" before the accident. Her car and Steiner's were going in opposite directions. a. As long as Boyer knows the speed limit and has driven a car for more than a year, she has sufficient expertise to give this testimony. b. As long as a judge can find that Boyer had sufficient opportunity to observe and estimate the speed, and had experience as a driver, she may give this testimony. c. As long as a judge can find that Boyer had sufficient opportunity to observe and estimate the speed, and had experience as a driver, and that the testimony is necessary to understand the evidence, she may give this testimony. d. As long as a judge can find that Boyer had sufficient opportunity to observe and estimate the speed, and had experience as a driver, and that the testimony is necessary to determine a fact in issue, she may give this testimony. 6. Assume for this question only that Boyer is permitted to testify as set forth in question 5. Later in the trial Jim calls Jarad Kinneally, who works for the insurance company. Jarad will testify that "I interviewed Ms. Boyer, and she told me that " I am really terrible at estimating speed." a. The testimony is admissible solely as to credibility. b. The testimony is inadmissible given the obvious bias of the insurance investigator. c. The testimony is inadmissible as hearsay. d. The testimony is inadmissible lay opinion. 7. Assume for this question only that Jarad Kinneally is permitted to testify to what he heard Boyer say. The plaintiff, cross-examining Kinneally , asks " isn't it true that you work for Jim's insurance company , and are just trying to save your company money by smearing Ms. Boyer?" a. The question must be allowed as it addresses the witness' bias . b. The question is automatically excluded , as the word insurance may never be mentioned in court. c. The question may be allowed, subject to a Rule 403 balance. d. The question may be allowed to comply with Rule 106, the rule of completeness, because without it the jury would not have a complete picture and be able to judge the witness. 8. For this next question, assume that Jim is being criminally charged with reckless homicide. He calls as a witness Bishop Emerick of the local parish , who will say that " Jim is a kind soul who would never deliberately hurt a flea, and completely honest ." a. All of the Bishop's words are admissible. b. None of the Bishop's words are admissible. c. Only the claim that Jim is "a kind soul who would never deliberately hurt a flea " is admissible. d. Only the claim that Jim is "completely honest" is admissible. 9. Back at the civil trial, Jim testifies that "I did not rotate the tires improperly. I di it with perfection, using the identical method I have done 1,000 times-I rotate them and then conduct three tests with a computer and one test with a handled device to ensure they are properly rotated and balanced." a. Jim's testimony is inadmissible character. b. Jim's testimony is admissible as habit or routine practice. c. Jim's testimony is admissible as habit or routine practice but only if a second witness, someone other than Jim , confirms it . d. Jim's testimony is inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. 10. Jim calls Sandra McKinley, who intends to testify that "Deidre Steiner was in a rush that night .She was hurrying to get some crack cocaine before her dealer left town." The estate's lawyer objects at a motion in limine, saying " this is terribly unfair . You know what the jury will do with this -blame the victim." The judge overrules the objection, and the testimony is admitted, The estate losses the trial and appeals , claiming this violates 404(a) and the ban on character in civil cases and would confuse the issue . a. no issue is preserved for appeal, as the estate's lawyer must mention a Rule by number. b. The issues are both preserved as long as the two grounds were apparent from the context. c. The issues are both preserved, because when a lawyer says that proof is "terribly unfair" it preserves all claims under all sections of the Federal Rules of Evidence. d. The issues are both preserved automatically because Rule 103 allows motions in limine and when a judge makes a decision in limine it may be appealed