51. Why is the cyclist's testimony relating what the defendant's employee said at the hospital admissible to prove negligence?

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the current trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Correctly classifying a statement as hearsay or non-hearsay is half the battle. The other half is determining whether some exception to the hearsay rule applies (i.e., the statement is hearsay because it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, however, it is nevertheless admissible pursuant to a specific exception).

Under FRE 801(d)(2), a statement by an opposing party (traditionally known as an «admission by a party-opponent») is not hearsay. Under this Rule, when the opposing party's statement is offered against that same opposing party and was made in either an individual or representative capacity, it is admissible. Statements by an agent or employee concerning any matter within the scope of her agency or employment, made during the existence of the agency or employment relationship, are admissible against the principal.

A witness's prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay if it was made under penalty of perjury at a prior trial or proceeding, or in a deposition. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). Such prior statements, if inconsistent with in-court testimony, would be admissible not only to impeach her credibility, but also as substantive proof.

A statement of a person, now unavailable as a witness, may be admissible if it was against that person's pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest when made. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3).

Statements that reflect directly (as opposed to circumstantially) on the declarant's state of mind are hearsay but are admissible under the FRE 803(3) exception.

C is correct. The cyclist's testimony regarding the defendant's employee's statement at the hospital is admissible to prove negligence as an admission by a party-opponent's agent under FRE 801(d)(2). The defendant's employee made the statement, which was concerning the accident that happened within the scope of his employment, and the employment relationship was still intact. As such, the statement is admissible substantively against the defendant/principal as non-hearsay.

A is incorrect. The call of the question asks why the statement would be admissible to prove negligence, meaning, on which ground will the testimony be substantively admissible? A prior inconsistent statement that is offered substantively requires that the prior statement be made under the penalty of perjury at a prior trial or proceeding. The employee's statement, «I'm sorry for what I did,» was not made within any such formal proceeding. Although the prior inconsistent statement may be used as impeachment evidence, it does not meet the requirements to be used substantively as a prior inconsistent statement.

B is incorrect. The testimony about the employee's statement does not qualify as a statement against interest because the declarant must be unavailable, and there is no evidence that the employee is unavailable at all, but rather, present and testifying at trial.

D is incorrect. The statement «I'm sorry» reflects the employee's state of mind at the time the statement was made. But the relevant issue is not the employee's state of mind the day after the accident, but whether he was negligent at the time of the accident. The hearsay rule for then-existing state of mind statements is not backward-looking. It generally does not allow statements of current mental states to prove past conduct or to show why the declarant has a certain state of mind.