This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps sued D because of injuries that they suffered in a collision on January 14, 1984. A stop sign, which would have controlled traffic, was down at the time of the accident. D would be immune from liability for damages based on a claim arising from the removal or destruction of a traffic or road sign by a third party unless D failed to correct the situation within a reasonable time after actual notice. The trial court admitted evidence of Ladd William Backhaus. He testified that a middle-aged woman drove up to the scene of the accident minutes after the collision. She was affected by what she saw, and she was very excited or upset, she was emotional, her hands were shaking, and her voice was 'crackling.' He said that she volunteered the statement that days prior to the accident she had reported to the city that the stop sign was down. D objected to the testimony as inadmissible hearsay. The court allowed it. Ps got the verdict and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.