Buddy was badly injured on April 1, 2021 while skiing at Candy Cane Mountain. He brought a

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Buddy was badly injured on April 1, 2021 while skiing at Candy Cane Mountain. He brought a civil action in federal district court against the owner of the ski area, North Pole, Inc., claiming that his injuries resulted from their negligence in failing to rope off the side entrances to the closed trail.

North Pole, Inc. had closed its Gum Drop trail on the day of the accident because of dangerous conditions. However, only the top entrance to the Gum Drop trail had been roped off and the trail remained accessible from a number of side entrances. Buddy initially started down a trail called Snowflake Alley. This trail bends to the left and a skier proceeding straight down the right side of Snowflake Alley can cross over to Gum Drop trail through one of its side entrances without changing direction. Buddy did just that. According to Buddy, after entering Gum Drop Trail from a side entrance, something "grabbed" his skis and catapulted him into the air, causing his injury.

After deciding to close Gum Drop trail, North Pole, Inc. only roped off the top entrance to the trail. No rope or warning sign was placed at any of Gum Drop Trail's side entrances.

At trial, North Pole, Inc.'s primary defense was that the risk posed by the Gum Drop Trail was so obvious that there was no need for any sign, rope, or other warning. Two other skiers who skied the trail that day testified that the danger was obvious because they could see bald spots from the side entrance used by Buddy. North Pole, Inc. contended that, therefore, Buddy was contributorily negligent in skiing Gum Drop Trail. The Jury found Buddy to be 90% negligent.

Buddy called Holly, the general manager of North Pole, Inc. who was its bookkeeper at the time of the accident, for cross-examination. When asked "It wouldn't have been impossible to put up warning signs, would it?" Holly responded, "It wasn't needed and it wasn't our priority, we were busy patrolling both trails."

At trial, Buddy sought to prove that immediately after his accident, North Pole, Inc. ordered its employees to place warning signs and ropes across the side entrances to Gum Drop Trail. The district court excluded this evidence.

During trial, Buddy was cross-examined about his injuries. Buddy had suffered a concussion on the day of the accident, and part of his claim related to continuing problems with the head injury. He also claimed to have developed a chronic back condition as a result of the injury.

The cross-examination of Buddy included the following:

Q. Have you talked to your lawyer about your testimony today?

A. Yes, many times. He told me to tell the truth.

Q. When did you first go to see your lawyer?

A. About a month after the accident, I'm not sure of the exact date.

Q. When did you first seek treatment for your back?

A. About a week after that.

On redirect, Buddy sought to put in evidence of a letter that he wrote to North Pole, Inc., on April 15, 2021. In the letter, Buddy stated that he had a claim against them and offered to settle the claim. He wrote, "I'm asking $200,000 in full settlement, or make your best offer," and North Pole, Inc. responded with an offer of $100,000. Buddy also wrote in the letter that he was asking $150,000 for the concussion and $50,000 for his back pain. Buddy offered the letter and North Pole, Inc.'s reply into evidence. The trial judge excluded both.

Buddy appeals, claiming error in the exclusion of evidence. How should the appeal be decided? Describe arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion. Authentication is not an issue.