During a negligence trial, a bystander is called to testify about a car accident they claim to have witnessed. On the stand, the bystander admits that they only heard the crash from inside a nearby store and did not see the scene until after it had occurred. The opposing attorney objects, stating that the testimony should be excluded. What is the best basis for sustaining this objection?
The witness lacks personal knowledge of the accident.
The testimony is irrelevant to the case.
The witness's observations occurred after the event took place.
The rules of evidence require that a witness may testify only about matters directly perceived through their own senses. Because the bystander did not see the crash itself, they lack the firsthand knowledge needed to describe how the accident happened. Although their later observations (such as the positions of the vehicles after the collision) could be admissible, those do not establish personal knowledge of the crash event. Testimony based on speculation, inference, or second-hand information violates the personal-knowledge requirement. Hearsay and relevance are not the primary issues here, because the objection concerns the bystander's capacity to testify from firsthand perception, not an out-of-court statement or overall relevance.
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 the context of legal testimony?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules of evidence regarding hearsay in a trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can observations made after an event still be admissible in court?