Betty Jordan v. Kelly Binns
2013 WL 1338049, 91 Fed. R. Serv. 16, 712 F.3d 1123 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a statement containing multiple levels of hearsay to be admissible, each level must independently satisfy a hearsay exception or exclusion. A party's out-of-court statement repeating another's words is admissible against that party as a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2)(A), but documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are not admissible as business records under FRE 803(6) due to a lack of trustworthiness.
Facts:
- Betty Jordan was operating a motorcycle on interstate I-70 when she collided with a semi tractor-trailer driven by Kelly Binns.
- As a result of the accident, Betty Jordan suffered severe injuries, ultimately leading to the amputation of both her legs at the knees.
- Immediately following the collision, while lying injured on the pavement, Betty Jordan allegedly told Binns, “Tell the trucker it’s not his fault. It’s my fault.”
- Betty Jordan has no recollection of making these statements.
- Betty's husband, Ted Jordan, arrived at the accident scene shortly after the collision.
- Ted Jordan allegedly told Binns, Indiana State Trooper Russell Litt, and insurance adjuster Kevin Niles that Betty had admitted the accident was her fault.
- Ted Jordan denied making any of these statements to Binns, Trooper Litt, or Niles.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty and Ted Jordan sued Kelly Binns and U.S. Xpress, Inc. in federal district court (court of first instance) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Binns and U.S. Xpress.
- The Jordans (appellants) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the district court made several erroneous evidentiary rulings.
- Binns and U.S. Xpress are the appellees in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do out-of-court statements containing multiple layers of hearsay, including a party-opponent's admissions recorded in a police report and an insurance adjuster's report, violate the rule against hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Tinder, Circuit Judge.
No, as to some statements, and yes, as to others. The admissibility of statements with multiple layers of hearsay does not violate the rule against hearsay so long as each layer is independently admissible. The court found that some of the challenged evidence was admissible while other evidence was inadmissible hearsay, but that the errors in admission were ultimately harmless. Betty Jordan’s initial statement admitting fault is a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2)(A). Ted Jordan's repetition of Betty's statement is also a non-hearsay party admission because he is a party to the suit and the statement was offered against him; the court rejected the argument that it was not his 'own' statement simply because he was repeating another's words. However, Binns's out-of-court statements repeating what Betty said are inadmissible hearsay because they were offered by him, not against him. Applying these principles to the documents, the court found the police report containing Ted's statement admissible because the report is a public record (FRE 803(8)) and Ted's statement is a party admission. In contrast, the insurance adjuster's report was deemed inadmissible because documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are not trustworthy business records under FRE 803(6). Despite finding that the trial court erred in admitting Binns's hearsay statements and the adjuster's report, the court concluded these errors were harmless because the improperly admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, and the overall evidence strongly favored the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear application of the 'hearsay within hearsay' rule under FRE 805, reinforcing that hearsay exceptions for documents like public or business records do not automatically sanitize inadmissible third-party statements contained within them. The court broadly interprets 'a party's own statement' under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) to include a party's repetition of another's statement, confirming that personal knowledge and trustworthiness are not requirements for this exclusion. The ruling also underscores the significant hurdle of the harmless error doctrine, demonstrating that even multiple, clear evidentiary errors at trial may not be sufficient to warrant a new trial if the erroneously admitted evidence is cumulative and the remaining evidence strongly supports the verdict.
Unlock the full brief for Betty Jordan v. Kelly Binns