Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

P.R. S., INC., APPELLANT, v. MIKE PELLACK, IVAN M. PELLACK, AND FLOYD PELLACK, APPELLEES.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case concerns the admissibility of testimony relating to out of court statements made by an employee of appellant as to the terms of appellees' contract of employment. A statement by an agent or employee on a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, is an admission of a party opponent, and, as such, an exception to the rule excluding hearsay testimony. Here there was evidence that the employee was a superintendent with the power to hire and that his statements were made while he was so employed by appellant. Testimony concerning his statements was therefore properly admitted.

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) provides:
(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if . . .
(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is

(D) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; . . .
Gagliardi v. Flint, 564 F.2d 112, 116 (3rd Cir. 1977); Wright Fruit Co., Inc. v. Morrison, 309 So.2d 54, 55 (Fla.App. 1975), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1975); Bobo v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 308 So.2d 907, 910 (La.App. 1975); cf. Gilmour v. Strescon Industries, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 146, 149-150 (1975).
The proposed Alaska Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) is identical to the federal rule.



AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

P.R. S., INC. v. PELLACK
(Aug 11, 1978)