A driver tells a bystander the brake issue; The plaintiff sues; Is the driver's statement admissible as a vicarious admission under the company's liability?

A driver tells a bystander the brake issue; The plaintiff sues; Is the driver's statement admissible as a vicarious admission under the company's liability?

• A. Not admissible because the driver was not authorized to speak.
• B. Admissible only if the driver was acting within scope of employment and the company is the party.
• C. Admissible only for impeachment.
• D. Admissible as a non-hearsay vicarious admission.

Answer: (D)

Under FRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement by a party’s employee or other agent about a matter within the scope of the employment, made during the existence of that relationship, is not hearsay when offered against the party. Here, the driver is an employee of the company, the brake issue relates to the vehicle’s operation (a matter within the scope of employment), and the statement was made during the employment relationship. Because the company is the party in the suit, this driver’s remark is admissible as a vicarious admission to prove liability. Express authorization to speak isn’t required for this to apply. It’s a substantive admission, not impeachment, so the statement can be used to support the company’s liability.

Under FRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement by a party’s employee or other agent about a matter within the scope of the employment, made during the existence of that relationship, is not hearsay when offered against the party. Here, the driver is an employee of the company, the brake issue relates to the vehicle’s operation (a matter within the scope of employment), and the statement was made during the employment relationship. Because the company is the party in the suit, this driver’s remark is admissible as a vicarious admission to prove liability. Express authorization to speak isn’t required for this to apply. It’s a substantive admission, not impeachment, so the statement can be used to support the company’s liability.