The issues presented to the Appellate Court were evidentiary in nature, having to do with the admissability of evidence and the weight to be given to the evidence if aditted. The opinion is silent as to whether the Appellant denied liabilty at the trial court level. It only discusses the issue of limitation of liabity. We don't know whether the Appellant defended on any other basis.
It would appear that the Appellant's position at trial was that he had successfully limited his liability to $25.00, and he introduced evidence in support of the position. Once he did that it opened the door for the Appellee to impeach the evidence and show that it was not the intent of the parties. On cross examination trial attorney's are accorded wide latitude to attack the credibility of witnesses and the documents introduced through their testimony. The appellee's evidence was relevant as to an agreement for the Appellant to carry more insurance than $10,000.00 and whether there was any intent to limit liability. It was admitted for that limited purpose, and apparently the trial court judge gave a limiting instruction to the jury. Once the Appellees evidence was admitted it was within the discretion of the jury to determine whether the Appellant's or Appellee's evidence was more credible with respect to the issue of limitation of liability to $25.00.It was not introduced for the purpose of establishing that the Appellant had acted wrongfully. The opinion never addressed the issue of the type of search (electronic or otherwise) so we don't know if it involved a thin data plant or not.

to post a reply: login - or - register