Shields v. Reddo

Supreme Court of Michigan
432 Mich. 761, 443 N.W.2d 145 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The admissibility of deposition testimony is governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE), which function as the primary gatekeeper over the Michigan Court Rules (MCR). Consequently, a deposition of a former employee taken after the employment relationship has ended is inadmissible hearsay unless the proponent demonstrates the deponent's unavailability to testify at trial, as MCR 2.308 does not create an independent exception to the MRE's hearsay rule.

Facts:

On the evening of April 10, 1980, Patrick Grandstaff consumed alcohol at Joe's Moravian Lounge, which was owned by Joseph Reddo.
Patricia Dudash was an employee of the lounge on the night Grandstaff was there.
Grandstaff left the bar at approximately 1:30 a.m. on April 11, 1980.
At around 2:30 a.m., a truck driven by Grandstaff struck and killed James Shields, who was standing on the shoulder of a highway.
A subsequent test revealed Grandstaff's blood alcohol level to be 0.12 percent.
Debra Shields, the widow, alleged that the lounge served Grandstaff while he was visibly intoxicated.
On June 13, 1983, Patricia Dudash, who was no longer employed by Reddo, provided deposition testimony supporting Shields' allegation.

Procedural Posture:

Debra Shields sued Joseph Reddo (bar owner) and Patrick Grandstaff in a Michigan trial court for wrongful death under the state's dramshop act.
At trial, Shields moved to admit the deposition of Patricia Dudash, a former employee of Reddo.
The trial court excluded the deposition as inadmissible hearsay because Shields failed to show that Dudash was unavailable to testify in person.
A jury found no liability for the defendant, Reddo.
Shields, as appellant, appealed the trial court's evidentiary ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

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 Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.308(A)(1)(b) permit the substantive admission of a former employee's deposition against their former employer without a showing that the deponent is unavailable to testify, even if the deposition constitutes hearsay under the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE)?

Opinions:

Majority - Griffin, J.

No. The deposition testimony of a former employee is not admissible as substantive evidence under MCR 2.308(A)(1)(b) unless it first satisfies the Michigan Rules of Evidence, which require a showing of the deponent's unavailability. The court rule does not create an independent exception to the rule against hearsay. The court's reasoning is based on several points: First, MRE 802 explicitly states, 'Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules,' which gives primacy to the Rules of Evidence. Second, the court rule itself, MCR 2.308(A)(1), contains the qualifying phrase 'so far as admissible under the rules of evidence,' signaling its subordination to the MRE. Third, unlike its federal counterpart, the Michigan rule was never amended to include language treating the deponent as if 'present and testifying,' which would bypass a hearsay objection. Finally, the policy behind the party-opponent admission rule (MRE 801(d)(2)(D)) rests on holding a principal responsible for an agent's statements made 'during the existence of the relationship'; this rationale of fairness and accountability does not extend to statements made by a former employee who may be hostile to their previous employer.

Dissenting - Archer, J.

Yes. The deposition should have been admitted as a document under MCR 2.308(A)(1)(b), with its contents then being subject to scrutiny under the Michigan Rules of Evidence. The dissent proposes a two-step analysis where the court rule first governs the admissibility of the deposition as a document, and the rules of evidence then govern the admissibility of the substantive statements within it. Under this approach, the trial court should have admitted the deposition and then redacted any material found to constitute inadmissible hearsay. This construction would give independent meaning to both the court rules and the rules of evidence, striking a balance between them rather than rendering the court rule superfluous. The majority's holding effectively reads the court rule 'into oblivion' by requiring any deposition to first meet the MRE's hearsay exceptions, which makes the court rule's specific provisions meaningless.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the hierarchical relationship between the Michigan Court Rules and the Michigan Rules of Evidence, firmly establishing that the MRE control the substantive admissibility of evidence. By refusing to interpret MCR 2.308(A)(1)(b) as an independent hearsay exception, the court preserved the integrity of the party-opponent admission rule (MRE 801(d)(2)(D)) and its underlying agency principles. The ruling reinforces the strong common-law preference for live, in-court testimony subject to cross-examination over pre-recorded deposition testimony, particularly when the witness is available. The court's simultaneous amendment of the rules to consolidate deposition use within the MRE underscores its intent to create a more unified and less conflicting evidentiary framework for future cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shields v. Reddo (1989)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature