Direct exam of a supervisor - he was freaked out really bad
We can't help it - us lawyers. We have to go to school for so long - it's no wonder we stop talking and thinking like real people. We say "prior" for before and "subsequent" for after. We love words with lots of syllables. Because this is what law school drilled into us.
In trial, we distance ourselves when we fail to communicate on a real person level. That's the beauty of having witnesses who are not experts. The jury can understand them.
Sometimes jurors will discount testimony by a friend or family member. They assume the person will say anything to help the plaintiff.
It is different when a co-worker (in this case a supervisor) testifies. A supervisor has the power to hire or fire you. Even if they are friends they still have the j.o.b. of putting the company first when it comes to business. Jurors generally view work related witnesses as being more objective than others.
In this case the supervisor is used to show: 1) plaintiff was a good worker and person; 2) the defendant was underhanded in ordering roofing supplies; and 3) if the company had known this wasn't a proper roofing job - they wouldn't have provided materials.
This is the transcript from the trial testimony.