Reed v. McCord
N.Y. 1899 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An admission of a material fact by a party to an action is competent evidence against that party, even if the party did not have personal knowledge of the fact admitted.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's intestate was killed in an accident involving a machine.
- The machine was owned by the defendant, McCord.
- McCord was not physically present when the accident occurred.
- At a subsequent coroner's inquest, McCord was called as a witness and sworn in.
- McCord testified at the inquest that the machine's safety 'dog' was not in position, which he stated caused the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing the deceased's estate, sued McCord for negligence in a New York trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- McCord (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Appellate Division then granted McCord (appellant) leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 an admission of a material fact by a party to an action admissible as evidence against that party, even if the party did not have personal knowledge of the fact admitted?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
Yes. In a civil action, the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, regardless of where, when, or to whom they were made. The court distinguished between an admission that one merely heard a statement, which would be inadmissible hearsay, and a direct admission of fact. The theory for allowing this evidence is that it is highly improbable a party will admit something against their own interest unless it is true. McCord's statement was a plain admission of the facts and circumstances of the injury, not merely a repetition of what he had heard, and was therefore admissible even though not based on personal knowledge. The court also held that under the New York Constitution, it lacked jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence because the Appellate Division's affirmance of the verdict was unanimous.
Dissenting - O'Brien, J.
This opinion was a dissent without a written explanation.
Analysis:
This case solidifies a key exception to the general requirement that witness testimony be based on personal knowledge. It establishes that for party-opponents, their admissions are admissible based on the theory of adoption—by stating a fact, the party adopts it as true, making its original source irrelevant. This decision reinforces the distinction between a party's admission against interest and ordinary hearsay. It significantly impacts evidence law by making it easier to introduce a party's own statements against them, thereby holding parties accountable for admissions they make outside of court, regardless of their basis of knowledge.
Unlock the full brief for Reed v. McCord