BIG MACK TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. v. Lucy DICKERSON et al.
497 S.W.2d 283 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's out-of-court statement regarding their own negligence is not admissible against their employer as a vicarious admission unless the employer authorized the employee to make the statement. The authority to perform an act, such as driving a truck, does not create implied authority to make post-accident statements about liability on the employer's behalf.
Facts:
- Willie Dickerson and Ormand Leday were both truck drivers for Big Mack Trucking Company, Inc.
- While on a delivery route, both drivers stopped their trucks in Waco, Texas.
- Leday parked his truck approximately fifteen to eighteen feet behind Dickerson's truck and left his vehicle unattended.
- Dickerson was standing at the rear of his own trailer with his back to Leday's truck.
- Leday's unattended truck rolled forward, pinning Dickerson between the two vehicles and causing his death.
- Following the accident, Leday told his vice president, David Stiles, that he had been having 'air pressure troubles' with his braking system.
- Leday also told the investigating police officer, Henry Harwell, that he had been experiencing brake trouble and that the air pressure was running low.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Dickerson's family first recovered workmen’s compensation benefits.
- Dickerson's family then filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Big Mack Trucking and its employee, Ormand Leday, in Texas district court (trial court).
- A jury found that Leday was negligent and acting as an employee of Big Mack, and awarded the family $220,000 in actual damages.
- After the jury verdict, the plaintiffs' attorney dismissed the case against Leday.
- The trial court entered a judgment for $220,000 against Big Mack.
- Big Mack, as appellant, appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Big Mack then sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, is an employee's out-of-court statement concerning his own negligence admissible as evidence against the employer when the statement does not independently qualify under a recognized hearsay exception as to the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sam D. Johnson
No, an employee's out-of-court statement concerning his negligence is not admissible against the employer unless it is competent evidence against the employer under a hearsay exception. Evidence of an employee's liability must be admissible against the employer to support a judgment against the employer under respondeat superior. Here, Leday's statements were hearsay. The court analyzed whether they fell under any exception as to Big Mack. First, the statements were not vicarious admissions because Big Mack did not authorize Leday to speak on its behalf regarding the accident; there is a presumption that an agent's report to a principal is for internal purposes only, not a public admission. Second, the statements did not qualify as spontaneous exclamations because there was no evidence Leday was in an excited emotional state. Finally, they were not declarations against interest because the plaintiffs failed to show that Leday was unavailable to testify. Because all evidence of Leday's negligence was inadmissible hearsay against Big Mack, there was no competent evidence to support the judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces a traditional and restrictive view of the vicarious admissions exception to the hearsay rule, particularly in the context of respondeat superior. The court's holding places a significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to prove an employee's negligence with evidence independently admissible against the employer, rather than relying on the employee's own post-event statements. This decision diverges from the more liberal approach later adopted by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)(D)), which allows statements concerning a matter within the scope of employment. The ruling protects employers from being held liable based on potentially unreliable or unauthorized statements made by their employees after an incident has occurred.
Unlock the full brief for BIG MACK TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. v. Lucy DICKERSON et al.