(DOWNLOAD) "Richardson v. F.U. Oil Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Richardson v. F.U. Oil Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 15, 1957
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
EVIDENCE ? APPEAL AND ERROR ? TRIAL. 1. Evidence ? Foundation for inference. Where an inference is permitted to show a previous condition, the foundation must show that the substance was in the same state or condition at a time not too remote, and that the nature of the substance is constant. 2. Evidence ? Method of proof. Only method of proof that burner fuel oil had a lower flash point than required by statute would be to prove results of test of such fuel oil by statutory method. 3. Evidence ? Court properly refused evidence. In personal injury action arising out of burns sustained due to explosion of a fuel oil container, trial court properly refused to admit evidence pertaining to flash point of fuel remaining in storage tank from which oil in question was drawn where test fuel was not drawn from the tank until approximately three weeks after the accident and the tank had not been in exclusive control of anyone until date sample was drawn, and sample was not tested for flash point by statutory method. 4. Evidence ? Foundation for evidence. Where plaintiff alleged negligence of seller of fuel oil in delivering oil with a lower flash point than prescribed by statute, in order for plaintiff to be permitted to have results of flash point tests of fuel oil remaining in storage tank submitted to jury, it was required to prove liquid tested was the same liquid sold to him by seller. 5. Evidence ? Tests as evidence. In dealing with experiments and tests, burden is on party offering the evidence to show similarity in essential conditions, and although preliminary proof of identity of conditions should be received, it is for the court to determine whether the conditions are sufficiently similar to warrant admission of the evidence. 6. Evidence ? Accident report not admissible. An Air Force accident report, prepared in accordance with an Air Force regulation, was not admissible in evidence in a negligence action under the Uniform Official Reports as Evidence Act where it was not prepared by an officer of the state. 7. Appeal and Error ? Trial court erred in admitting report. Trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing defendant to introduce a carbon copy of an Air Force report on the accident on theory it was a federal document without requiring proper foundation - Page 536 to be laid for its admission as a report made in the regular course of business. 8. Trial ? Plaintiff not precluded from urging error. A plaintiff was not precluded from urging error in admission of a report merely because after his objection to its admission had been overruled he further questioned a witness who had signed such report in order to show that it was hearsay and therefore inadmissible. 9. Evidence ? Presumption as to existence. The presumption that a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature does not operate backwards, since presumptions cannot be reversed, and therefore no presumption is to be inferred from the fact that a condition exists at a particular time that it existed in the past. 10. Trial ? Court erred in instruction as to defendants insurance coverage. Where defendant offered in evidence a letter containing reference to defendants insurance coverage, defendant was not entitled to an instruction that jury should disregard such evidence, and trial court erred in giving same.