Martin v. Savage Truck Line, Inc.
1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3431, 121 F. Supp. 417 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made by an employee-driver to a police officer at the scene of an accident regarding the circumstances of the accident is admissible against the employer, as the act of reporting to an investigator is considered within the scope of the employee's agency.
Facts:
- A truck owned by the defendant was operated by its employee, Allie F. Ray.
- The truck was involved in a collision that resulted in the death of the plaintiff's decedent.
- Immediately following the collision and before the vehicles were moved, an investigating police officer arrived at the scene.
- The driver, Allie F. Ray, stated to the officer that he was driving at thirty miles per hour and that the green light was with him.
- The employee-driver, Allie F. Ray, died at some point before the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a U.S. District Court to recover damages for wrongful death.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, arguing the driver's statement was improperly admitted as evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a statement made by an employee-driver to an investigating police officer at the scene of a collision, shortly after it occurred, admissible as evidence against the employer in a negligence action?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris, District Judge.
Yes. A statement made by an employee-driver to a police officer at the scene of an accident is admissible against the employer. The court rejects the outdated rule from Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. O’Brien, which held that an agent is employed to act, not to make statements about that action. The court reasons that modern transportation realities and public policy have drastically changed since 1886. Given the prevalence of motor vehicles and the legal requirement for drivers to report accidents, it is an 'untenable fiction' to claim an employee is an agent for operating a vehicle but not for truthfully relating the facts to an investigator immediately after an accident. The court concludes that the agency relationship inherently includes the responsibility of reporting the facts of an accident, making the employee's on-scene statement to an officer a statement made within the scope of his employment.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift from the traditional, narrow view of an agent's scope of employment for evidentiary purposes. By treating a driver's post-accident statements to police as part of their duties, the court modernizes the rules of vicarious admissions to align with contemporary public policy and the realities of accident investigation. This precedent broadens the scope of statements that can be attributed to an employer, making it easier for plaintiffs to introduce potentially damaging admissions made by employees at the scene of an incident. The ruling reflects a move from a formalistic application of agency principles to a more pragmatic approach grounded in the context of modern motor vehicle operation.
