A plaintiff in a workplace-injury case calls a coworker to testify that the workplace was unsafe. The coworker testifies that another employee told them about safety violations at the workplace. The defendant objects on the ground that the coworker lacks firsthand knowledge of the workplace conditions. Should the court admit the coworker's testimony?
Yes, the coworker's testimony is admissible because hearsay is allowed from another employee in this instance.
No, the coworker's testimony is inadmissible because they lack personal knowledge of the workplace conditions they are testifying about.
No, the coworker's testimony is inadmissible because it does not meet a requirement for authentication.
Yes, the coworker's testimony is admissible because they have firsthand familiarity with the workplace.
The testimony is inadmissible because the coworker lacks personal knowledge of the safety violations, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Personal knowledge requires that the witness directly perceived the matter about which they testify through their own senses. Here, the coworker relies entirely on what another employee said, rather than on any observation of unsafe conditions. Although the coworker has personal knowledge of hearing the statement, that does not satisfy Rule 602 for the truth of the matter asserted, and the statement would also be hearsay if offered for that purpose. The other answer choices are incorrect because (1) mere familiarity with the workplace does not establish firsthand knowledge of specific safety violations, (2) hearsay is not admissible absent an exception, and (3) authentication concerns documents and tangible evidence, not a witness's personal knowledge of facts.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'personal knowledge' mean in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is hearsay and why is it generally not admissible in court?