185 F. 997 | D. Mass. | 1911
The evidence was sufficient to show that the plaintiff received injuries through being thrown out of a farm wagon, which she was driving, by the negligence of persons who were operating an automobile belonging to the defendant. The defendant was not in the automobile.
The principal testimony relating to the defendant’s responsibility for the accident was his own admission to an attorney at law. The attorney states that after the accident he called upon the defendant and asked him if he could tell about the accident to plaintiff. The witness testified concerning the statement by the defendant as follows:
“He said: T am liable,for the accident. It was my automobile, and I am not trying to dodge the responsibility.’ He said that his automobile was a new or comparatively new one, and his son and a man named Connor took it out to run it and find out some defect that was in the automobile.”
' The jury were instructed that they might also consider the defendant’s further statement that Mr. Connor was instructing the son of the defendant.
Objection was made by defendant’s counsel to receiving- in evidence . the admission against interest made by plaintiff, on the ground that admissions against interest based on hearsay evidence are incompetent.
So far, as the statement of Mr. Ross bore upon the question of negligent management of the machine it was of no practical consequence.
The jury were duly cautioned that tlie defendant’s admission of liability should be received with great caution, since such a statement might be based upon an erroneous view of the law. It was left with the jury to determine whether the statement of the defendant that he was liable, together with the statement that his son and a man named Connor took it out to run it and find out some defect that was in the automobile, and that Mr. Connor was instructing the son, satisfied
It is nut necessary to determine whether, as a matter of law, an admission which is based solely upon knowledge acquired from others is admissible. The statement of the defendant is not conclusive upon the question of the source of his knowledge. It may have been based upon his own knowledge, or upon instructions given by him that the. machine should be run for the discovery of the defect, or that it should he used for the purpose of teaching his son how to operate it. Although in court, the defendant was not placed upon the stand, and did not deny that he had made admissions in the language given by the witness. Under these circumstances, neither the court nor the jury was hound to draw the inference that the admission was based purely upon hearsay, rather than upon the defendant’s own knowledge.
The admission of liability, together with the reasons given therefor, was, I think, competent testimony upon the question of defendant’s responsibility, and sufficient to support the verdict in this respect.
Petition for new trial denied.