Motion And Brief In Support Of MIL To Exclude Third-Party Statements

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE THIRD-PARTY STATEMENTS

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

______________________________

______________________________

Plaintiffs

v.

JOHN DOE and

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE POLICE REPORT, ADJUSTER LOG CONTAINING THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS, AND MEDICAL RECORD CONTAINING THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, and moves for an order in limine preventing defendants or their attorneys or witnesses from offering into evidence, volunteering, arguing, suggesting, stating, intimating, or otherwise placing any of the following matters before the jury at the trial of this cause:

The UD-10 listing Plaintiff's apartment complex as her address.

Plaintiff's mother's statements to an Insurance Company adjuster.

A [rehabilitation center] evaluation sheet.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant her Motion in Limine in its entirety and enter an Order excluding the UD-10, the statements made by Plaintiff’s mother to Defendant’s adjuster, and the Rehabilitation Center of Michigan evaluation sheet.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiff

_________________________________________

Dated:

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

______________________________

______________________________

Plaintiffs

v.

JOHN DOE and

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE POLICE REPORT, ADJUSTER

LOG CONTAINING THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS, AND MEDICAL RECORD

CONTAINING THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS

THE POLICE REPORT

The UD-10 traffic crash report is inadmissible because the statement of address is hearsay, and because the reporting officer lacked personal knowledge of Plaintiff's address when he drafted the report.

State law prohibits the admission into evidence of the UD-10 traffic crash report or the use of any opinions, conclusions, or assumptions contained in that report:

A report required by this chapter shall not be available for use in a court action, but a report shall be for the purpose of furnishing statistical information regarding the number and cause of accidents.

* * *

The information, records, reports, statements, notes, memoranda, or other data shall not be admissible as evidence in a court or before any other tribunal, board, agency, or person.

MCL 257.624. See also MRE 803(8) and MRE 803(6), which preclude admission of the UD-10 report. Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104; 457 N.W.2d 669 (1990); Moncrief v. City of Detroit, 398 Mich. 181; 247 N.W.2d 783 (1976); and Hewitt v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., 123 Mich. App. 309; 333 N.W.2d 264 (1983).

Moreover, accident reports made by police officers are normally held to be inadmissible as evidence when the officer who made the report lacked personal knowledge of the information contained in the report. Bliss v. Kaplan, 369 Mich. 293, 300 (1963).

Application of Law:

Here, the UD-10 is wholly inadmissible because any...