1507.

I would argue:

1.    This is not a statement made personally by the opposing party [801(d)(2)(A)] because Arden is not a defendant; only Big Red was sued. The only theories so far are that Big Red is liable under respondeat superior or for negligent entrustment.

2    This is not admissible as a statement of an employee of Big Red within the scope of her employment [801(d)(2)(D)] because no foundation has been laid as the scope of her employment and whether she was still employed when she spoke to the police.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1507

How can the defense respond to the hearsay objection to Arden’s self-serviong statement she was driving carefully in item 16?  When you think you know the answer, click here