This question should be answered in IRAC format. Please include all relevant keywords, terms, and phrases when discussing each topic.
Lonny was a balloonist who made his living giving rides to tourists who visited the valley where he lived and worked. One weekend during the off-season, Lonny installed some new deflation panels in his balloon that had been manufactured by the Gassy Balloon Company (“GBC”). He inflated the balloon, and then increased the output of heat from the burner heating the air so that he would ascend. When the balloon reached an altitude of several hundred feet, one of the deflation panel closures partially gave way, causing the balloon to descend rapidly while gyrating wildly due to the force of the escaping hot air. By turning the burner on full, Lonny was able to slow his descent so that by the time he neared the ground, he was not falling at a deadly speed. Thirty feet from the ground, the deflation panel closure gave way completely, dropping the balloon and Lonny rapidly. Lonny suffered severe injuries as a result of the impact.
Lonny has brought an action against GBC for personal injuries and for the damage done to his balloon and gondola.
During his testimony, Lonny states that he purchased the deflation panels two days before installing them and taking the test flight. During its case in chief, GBC presents the testimony of Lucy, a clerk at the aviation supply store where Lonny purchased the panels, that she remembers Lonny coming into the store and purchasing the panels a week before the date testified to by him, because he signed the purchase order with such an unusual signature.
If Lonny objects to this testimony, should the trial court admit it?
NotepadClick anywhere in notepad to add a note
Consider the nature of Lucy’s proposed testimony regarding the date of Lonny’s deflation panels purchase. Does Lucy’s testimony contradicting Lonny regarding the date of purchase tend to make GBC’s fault more or less probable?