Stroud v. Cook case brief

Stroud v. Cook case brief summary
931 F.Supp. 733 (D. Nev. 1996)

CASE SYNOPSIS

An action arose out of a collision between vehicles driven by plaintiff and defendant one, and the subsequent, allegedly resultant collision between plaintiff's vehicle and an automobile driven by defendant two. Defendant one filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude from evidence a judgment of conviction entered against him for violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484.363.

CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sought to introduce the judgment of conviction as evidence of defendant one's negligence on the occasion of the accident. The court denied the motion.

DISCUSSION

• Misdemeanor convictions were admissible in evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 803's public records exception to the hearsay rule. 
• Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.133 appeared to require the admission in evidence of the judgment of conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484.363 for failing to use due care in the operation of a motor vehicle. 
• Failure to use due care was an element of plaintiff's claim of negligence. 
• The judgment of conviction was therefore highly relevant to the negligent claim. 
• A federal diversity court had to apply the substantive law of the forum state. 
• Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.133 essentially created a presumption that a person convicted of crime, which resulted in injury, was civilly liable to the injured person. 
• Where a state statute such as § 41.133 was intimately bound up with the rights and obligations being asserted, the doctrine of Erie mandated the application of the state rule in a diversity case. 
• The judgment of conviction should be admitted in evidence.

CONCLUSION
The court denied defendant one's motion in limine.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.