as an Authorized Admission
subject to making mistakes, just as
anyone is capable of doing. Generally, an
expert is hired to establish an essential
issue in a case. However, what the expert
is hired to do and what the derivative
outcome is may not be the same. In fact,
a party's expert may take a turn for the
worse. This is obviously advantageous
only when it is the opposing party's
expert.
To illuminate this point, let's say a
plaintiff files a negligence action against
the defendant. The plaintiff, then, may
or element in her case, such as whether
the accident was foreseeable based
upon the conduct of the defendant. The
plaintiff will designate the expert, and
the defendant will depose the expert.
The plaintiff may also produce an expert
report stating the expert's opinions. At
this point, everything is going smoothly.
However, let's say during the expert's
deposition, the expert says something no
one expected, such as, "This accident
was unforeseeable." Logically, the
plaintiff will seek to withdraw the
expert due to the tremendous damage
this has done to her case. In turn, the
defendant will seek to use the deposition
testimony to his advantage. After all,
if the statement is admitted, the case
is most likely over because the expert
is essentially saying the defendant did
nothing wrong or cannot be held liable
for an accident that they could not
prevent.
At this point, the plaintiff is frantic
and will likely seek to withdraw the
designated expert. However, many cases
say that it is too late and that the damage
is already done. Specifically, these
cases state that the statements an expert
makes in a deposition may qualify as
an authorized admission of the plaintiff
and fall within an express exception to
the hearsay rule under USCS Fed Rules
Evid R 801.
court statements has been recognized
by several courts.
statement is offered against them and
were "made by a person whom the party
authorized to make a statement on the
subject...".
of Civil Procedure, which provides that
"any deposition may be used by any
party for the purpose of contradicting or
impeaching the testimony of deponent
as a witness, or for any other purpose
permitted by the Federal Rules of
Evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1).
expert's opinion should be imputed back
to the party that hired the expert the
expert was authorized by the party to
make statements regarding the issues in
the cause of action.The leading case on
this issue is H.S. Collins v. Wayne Corp.
says in his deposition can be used at
trial, even though the expert does not
testify, because the expert's testimony
is considered an authorized admission
of the opposing party. Once a party
designates the expert and he has been
deposed, use of such statements made in
their deposition at trial are admissible
as evidence.
opinions and make statements on behalf
of the plaintiff. Even if the party did not
specifically authorize the statement, the
party does expressly authorize the expert
to make "admissions."
a trial involving expert witnesses, you
with Spicer Rudstrom PLLC. He serves as the
firm's lead attorney for research and writing,
including dispositive motions and pretrial
motions with an emphasis on appellate
briefs for all of the firm's attorneys. He works
with domestic and international companies,
providing them with in-depth analysis of often
very convoluted issues arising under Tennessee
law and surrounding jurisdictions.
Bank of America Tower
414 Union Street, Suite 1700
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
spicerfirm.com