d. None of these; the burden of proof is on the defendant.
Jessica was a former employee of Mark. When potential employers called Mark for a
reference about Jessica, he stated she was not a very good worker and had been fired for
excessive absences. He said he believed Jessica was on drugs, but he did not know for
sure. Jessica learned what Mark was saying and sued him. In most states:
a. it was legal for Mark to say what he said if it was true and Mark was not motivated
by ill will.
b. it was legal for Mark to say what he said, since courts have consistently ruled that
former employers are immune from lawsuits for giving references.
c. it was not proper for Mark to say what he said, since courts have consistently ruled
that former employers should not give references over the telephone or in writing
without the former employee’s written authorization.
d. though it was proper for Mark to talk about Jessica’s work-related history, he acted
improperly when he said he thought she was on drugs.
The distinction between a condition precedent and a condition subsequent:
a. is important because it determines whether the burden of proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence.
b. seldom arises in insurance cases.