TortsIntentional infliction of mental distressEvidenceintentional infliction of mental distresslimited-purpose evidenceoffer of proofexclusion of evidencenotice
Facts
The plaintiff brought an action of tort for intentional infliction of mental distress against the defendant. At trial, she sought to introduce a letter her attorney had sent to the defendant stating that its alleged claim was groundless, that its dunning tactics were designed to harass and intimidate her, and that those tactics were injuring her health and well-being. The plaintiff conceded the letter was not admissible for the truth of those statements, but argued it was relevant to show the defendant had reason to believe its conduct was affecting her health and thus that its subsequent conduct was extreme and outrageous. The bill of exceptions showed that the letter was offered without limitation or explanation.
Issue
Did the trial court err in excluding the attorney's letter when the letter may have been admissible for the limited purpose of showing the defendant's notice, but the plaintiff offered it without restricting the offer to that purpose?
Rule
Counsel has the duty to bring to the trial judge's attention with sufficient clarity the grounds on which admission of evidence is sought. When evidence may be admissible only for a limited purpose, and the proponent offers it without limitation or explanation, the court may properly exclude it.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a tort suit in Boston alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, Nina Patel claims that Harbor Square Collections kept threatening her after being told their demands were harming her health. At trial, Nina offers a letter her lawyer sent to Harbor Square stating that its tactics were upsetting her and worsening her insomnia. When offering the exhibit, counsel says, "I offer this only to show Harbor Square had notice of her condition, not for the truth of the statements in the letter."
How should the trial judge rule on the offer?
Explanation. The governing rule is that evidence potentially admissible only for a limited purpose may be considered for that purpose if counsel brings the ground for admission to the judge's attention with sufficient clarity. Here, counsel expressly limited the offer to notice, rather than truth, so exclusion would not be justified on the ground that the offer was unrestricted. (Derived from George v. Jordan Marsh Co. (n.d.).)