California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Houghtaling v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 1128, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 855 (Cal. App. 1993):
A second point is more practical. It is repeatedly stated that small claims courts are designed for the unsophisticated petty litigant. (See e.g., Brooks v. Small Claims Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 661, 669, 105 Cal.Rptr. 785, 504 P.2d 1249--"inexperienced individual.") Volumes have been written on the hearsay rule, and the shelves are filled with judicial constructions and explanations. It is simply unrealistic to expect lay litigants to understand and abide by the formal rules of evidence. How is a lay plaintiff to be made to understand that the bill for services which he presents to show the repair costs for his damaged property must be authenticated as a business record? Or that the police report of an accident proves nothing in the eyes of the law? Nor would a strict enforcement of the hearsay rule serve the policies of speed and economy, if the result were to compel the parties to bring in numerous additional witnesses to testify in person. The parties might incur subpoena and witness fees; on the other hand, in neighborhood matters, a party might be unwilling to antagonize a reluctant witness by compelling his appearance. In a case such as the one at bar, of course, the practical difficulties facing a party with
Page 860
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.