The court should not require strict adherence to the rules of evidence in small claims trials.
Commentary
The small claims procedure has from its inception been intended to give
... an opportunity to the parties to come directly before the judge, tell him their story, answer his questions, and let him settle it, and that is what most people in such small matters want....
[T]he extent to which rules of practice shall be applied may well be left to the discretion of the courts. The judge is dealing directly with parties who are not lawyers and do not understand the rules of evidence. The judge can sift the evidence. He is left free to get at the facts. When he gets them, he applies the law and decides the case.
Report of the Judicature Commission 12, 14, 1920 House Doc. No. 597.
The court should not require adherence to technical rules of evidence except those relating to privileged communications. Evidence, including hearsay evidence, may be admitted and given probative effect if it is the kind of evidence that reasonable persons are accustomed to rely upon in the conduct of serious affairs. In keeping with the nature of the small claims procedure, the court may restrict the form of cross-examination and may exclude unduly repetitious evidence.
Although the rules of evidence are relaxed, the court should not overlook its duty to assure the relevance and reliability of the evidence admitted.
This Standard is also applicable to trials on appeal. See Standard 8:02.