Reed was killed in an industrial accident, his estate sued
McCord for wrongful death.
McCord was in charge of the work site.
At an inquest by the coroner, McCord admitted the details
of the accident.
Basically, McCord admitted that the accident occurred
because a safety device was not properly positioned.
At trial, Reed had the stenographer from the coroner's
inquest testify to the things McCord admitted to.
McCord objected to the introduction of this evidence on
the grounds that it was hearsay.
McCord wasn't personally present for the accident. His
testimony to the coroner was simply what he had heard from other people.
McCord argued that since he'd only heard what happened
from someone else, it was clearly hearsay.
The Trial Judge allowed the evidence to be admitted.
McCord was found negligent in the death of Reed. McCord
appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court agreed that if McCord had stated
that, "he had heard the safety device was not properly
positioned," then that would be hearsay.
However, McCord stated a fact, not that he'd heard
something that other people believe to be a fact. That's an admission.
The Appellate Court found that in a civil action the admissions
by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent
evidence against him.
The idea is that no party would be dumb enough to admit
anything against themselves that they don't believe to be true.
The Appellate Court found that McCord could argue that
his statements to the coroner shouldn't be given any weight by the jury,
but they were still admissible.
The basic rule is that admissions are admissible,
even if they are statements of opinion and even if the declarant lacks
personal knowledge.
Btw, this case predated the FRE and was decided
under the common law.
Under FRE 801(d)(2), admissions made by a
party-opponent are not considered hearsay.
