Betty Jordan v. Kelly Binns
712 F.3d 1123
7th Cir.2013Background
- Diversity action arising from a motorcycle-truck collision on I-70 in Indiana; Betty Jordan sustained severe injuries.
- Betty and Ted Jordan allege negligence and loss of consortium against Kelly Binns and U.S. Xpress, Inc.
- Jordans sought a new trial challenging district court hearsay rulings; jury returned a defense verdict.
- Key issue centers on multiple layers of hearsay involving Betty’s statements about fault and subsequent recitations in reports.
- District court admitted some statements under various rules and redacted some portions of a police report; court admitted a public-records and a business-records document despite objections.
- Court affirms most rulings but holds some specific hearsay and business-records errors require reversal or careful harmless-error analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ted’s statements to others about Betty’s statements are party admissions | Ted’s statements are nonhearsay party admissions under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) | Ted’s statements repeat Betty’s statements and may not be party admissions | Ted’s statements qualify as party admissions under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) |
| Whether Binns’s statements about Betty’s statements are admissible hearsay | Betty’s statements were not hearsay but Binns’s repeats are hearsay | Binns’s statements are admissible as nonparty or non-admissions evidence | Binns’s statements about Betty’s statements are inadmissible hearsay without a valid exception |
| Whether the Crash Report’s statements fall under the public-records exception | The Crash Report is a public record and its included statements should be admitted | Public-records exception does not automatically authorize third-party statements within a police report | Redacted portions involving the opinions were admissible as public records; however, third-party statements require independent basis; admitted portions were permissible as public record, but unredacted portions as to Binns/Ted were not |
| Whether the Adjuster's Report is admissible as a business record | Adjuster’s report falls within FRE 803(6) as a business record | Report prepared in anticipation of litigation is not a proper business record and is untrustworthy | Adjuster's Report was improperly admitted and should have been excluded as untrustworthy and prepared for litigation |
| Harmlessness of evidentiary errors given cumulative evidence | Multiple errors collectively prejudiced the Jordans | Any errors were harmless due to overwhelming properly admitted evidence | When considered with the entire trial record, errors were harmless; no new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Earls, 704 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard, review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1984) (treatment of party admissions and nonhearsay)
- United States v. Hubbard, 22 F.3d 1410 (7th Cir. 1994) (admissions under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) despite voluntariness argument)
- Jewell v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 135 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 1998) (individually made statements by a party-opponent via family testimony permissible)
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (public-records exception scope; evaluative content admissibility)
- Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1978) (admission of party statements differing from others' reports under 801(d)(2)(A))
- Yohay v. City of Alexandria Emps. Credit Union, Inc., 827 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987) (chains of hearsay and admissions; admissibility when adopted by party)