Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.
588 F.2d 626 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), a statement by a party's agent or employee concerning a matter within the scope of their employment is admissible against the party as non-hearsay, and there is no requirement that the agent or employee have personal knowledge of the facts underlying the statement.
Facts:
- Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc. owned a wolf named Sophie.
- Kenneth Poos, Wild Canid's Director of Education, was keeping Sophie at his private residence.
- The evening before the incident, Sophie jumped a fence and attacked another dog, so Poos chained her inside a fenced enclosure.
- On March 23, 1973, Daniel Mahlandt, a three-year-old child, was found injured inside Sophie's enclosure.
- No one witnessed the incident, and an expert later opined that Daniel's lacerations were not consistent with a wolf bite but rather with the barbs on the fence.
- Kenneth Poos, who was not present during the incident, arrived home and investigated.
- Poos then left a note on the door of Wild Canid's president stating, 'Sophie bit a child that came in our back yard.'
- Later that day, Poos orally told Wild Canid's president that 'Sophie had bit a child that day.'
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Mahlandt's parents, on his behalf, sued Kenneth Poos and Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc. in federal district court (the court of first instance).
- During the jury trial, the plaintiffs attempted to introduce Poos's written and oral statements, as well as minutes from a Wild Canid board meeting, as evidence.
- The trial court judge excluded all three pieces of evidence, reasoning that the declarants lacked personal knowledge of the event.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Poos and Wild Canid.
- The plaintiffs, Daniel Mahlandt et al., appealed the trial court's evidentiary rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, making them the appellants and Poos and Wild Canid the appellees.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), are statements made by a party-opponent or their agent concerning a matter within the scope of their employment admissible as non-hearsay, even if the declarant lacks personal knowledge of the underlying event?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Sickle, J.
Yes. Statements by a party-opponent or their agent concerning a matter within the scope of employment are admissible as non-hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2) without a requirement of personal knowledge. Mr. Poos's written note and oral statement are admissible against him as his own statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). They are also admissible against his employer, Wild Canid, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because Poos was an agent, the statements concerned his custody of the wolf (a matter within the scope of his employment), and were made during the employment relationship. The court explicitly rejected the trial judge's reasoning that personal knowledge is a prerequisite for admissibility under this rule, citing the Advisory Committee's note that calls for 'generous treatment' for admissions and notes their freedom from the 'rule requiring first hand knowledge.' While the corporate minutes discussing the 'biting' are admissible against the corporation under 801(d)(2)(C) as an authorized statement, they are not admissible against Poos, who was a non-attending employee. The exclusion of Poos's statements was an error, but the exclusion of the minutes was justified under Rule 403 due to their low probative value and repetitive nature.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial interpretation of the newly enacted Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically clarifying the scope of admissions by a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2). The court's holding firmly establishes that the common law requirement of personal knowledge does not apply to vicarious admissions made by an agent or employee. This decision broadens the scope of admissible evidence against principals (like corporations), allowing statements of conclusion or opinion by their agents to be introduced, thereby shifting the burden to the principal to explain or rebut the admission at trial. It confirms the drafters' intent to treat admissions as a distinct and generously applied category of evidence, separate from traditional hearsay exceptions that demand assurances of trustworthiness like firsthand knowledge.
Unlock the full brief for Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.