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)(D), a statement made by a party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of their employment, and during the existence of that relationship, is admissible against the party as a non-hearsay admission, regardless of whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the facts underlying the statement.
Facts:
- Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. owned an 11-month-old wolf named Sophie.
- Kenneth Poos, Director of Education for Wild Canid, was keeping Sophie at his home to use in educational programs.
- Sophie was chained in the Poos' yard next to a five-foot fence after having jumped the fence and attacked a dog the previous evening.
- Daniel Mahlandt, a three-year-old child, was walking past the Poos residence on his way to a neighbor's house.
- A neighbor heard a child screaming and saw the wolf straddling Daniel inside the fenced enclosure.
- Clarke Poos, Kenneth Poos's son, separated the wolf and the child; no one witnessed how Daniel entered the enclosure or was injured.
- Daniel was found to have suffered multiple lacerations to his face, thighs, and calf, along with abrasions and bruises.
- After the incident, Kenneth Poos wrote a note for his superior at Wild Canid stating, "Sophie bit a child that came in our back yard."
Procedural Posture:
- The Mahlandt family filed a civil suit for damages against Kenneth Poos and the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. in federal district court (the trial court).
- During the jury trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce as evidence two statements by defendant Poos and an entry in the defendant Wild Canid's corporate minutes, all of which stated that the wolf had bitten the child.
- The trial judge excluded all three pieces of evidence on the grounds that they were inadmissible hearsay because the declarant lacked personal knowledge of the event.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Poos and Wild Canid.
- The plaintiff, Mahlandt, appealed the trial court's evidentiary rulings to the United States Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), which defines admissions by a party-opponent as non-hearsay, require the declarant to have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their statement for the statement to be admissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Sickle, District Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) does not require a declarant to have personal knowledge of the underlying facts for their statement to be admissible as an admission by a party-opponent. The court reasoned that Mr. Poos's statements ('Sophie bit a child') were admissible against him personally as his own statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). They were also admissible against his employer, Wild Canid, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because Poos was an agent, the statements concerned the custody of the wolf (a matter within the scope of his agency), and they were made during the agency relationship. The court rejected the argument that a lack of personal knowledge makes such admissions unreliable, holding that neither Rule 403 nor Rule 805 imposes a personal knowledge requirement on Rule 801(d)(2). The Advisory Committee notes for the Rules of Evidence call for a 'generous treatment' of admissions, freeing them from the restrictive influences of the opinion rule and the rule requiring firsthand knowledge. Therefore, the trial court erred in excluding Mr. Poos's statements.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the admission by a party-opponent rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence. By explicitly rejecting a personal knowledge requirement for statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), the court broadened the scope of evidence admissible against principals, especially corporations. This precedent makes it easier to introduce statements by employees against their employers, even if the employee is relaying a conclusion rather than a firsthand observation. The ruling reinforces the theory that admissions are admissible due to the nature of the adversary system, not because they are inherently trustworthy.
Unlock the full brief for Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.