F.R.E. 406; Pattern, Practice, Routine

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

F.R.E. 406; Pattern, Practice, Routine

Postby Administrator » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:48 am

F.R.E. 406; Pattern, Practice, Routine

Customer who had checking account sued bank for permitting passed forged checks to impact customer’s account and cause damage. Bank negligently paid bad checks. Court awarded customer damages. Evidence supported finding that bank failed to exercise ordinary care. Bank’s inspection procedures were so superficial as to offer no realistic opportunity to detect forged checks. Customer was allowed to show that bank, using its routine inspection procedures, paid five [5] checks that were facially defective. Such evidence was admissible as it showed that bank’s procedures [same bank procedures] had been inadequate in the past. Here, the court noted that it applied the concept of proof of other injuries under the identical conditions as the injury in suit. Those other injuries may be proved for the purpose of showing that the condition was unsafe. Putnam Rolling Ladder Co., Inc. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 547 N.Y.S.2d 611, 546 N.E.2d 904, 74 N.Y.2d 340 [1989].
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests