RodneyBoonfield wrote:Joe Quincy wrote:stratocophic wrote:Right. On the other hand, he could use it to impeach on cross if the driver says "I'm a perfectly safe driver, why I've never had so much as a speeding ticket, much less ever driven recklessly."RodneyBoonfield wrote:Evidence Question here:
Say you're in a civil case for a car accident tort and a driver (not sued, but drove for the company who is being sued) testifies that he was driving properly and not negligently at the time of the accident. If the plaintiff's attorney wants to inquire on cross about a conviction for reckless driving, a misdemeanor, he cannot, correct? This is not proper impeachment because it is not probative of truthfulness correct?
So the P's attorney can't use that past conviction to say well you're a liar and bad driver?
Correct, except that would probably be a collateral matter and 403 would keep it out.
Wouldnt the driver not be able to testify to himself being a perfectly safe driver because that is character evidence, which is not permitted in civil cases unless its a "character at issue" case?
Officially yes. Unofficially, it happens. Especially because almost always, you'd sue him and the employer so his driving history would be at issue (as to the company).