Opinion ID: 1692340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to Admit Deposition Testimony of Defendant's Managing Agent.

Text: Plaintiff on her cross appeal asks for a partial retrial on punitive damages in order that she may offer portions of the deposition of defendant's managing agent which she claims bear on the question of malice. The testimony in question implied that repossession of fuel tanks by defendant was not uncommon, notwithstanding the absence of a default in lease payments, if other accounts of the lessee were delinquent. It was indicated in the deposition testimony that this practice served well to get the debtor's attention. The managing agent of defendant's Washington, Iowa, office, whose deposition testimony was excluded by the court, testified in person at the trial. This testimony was received out of order during plaintiff's case in chief. When, after that witness had been excused, plaintiff sought to read into evidence the disputed deposition testimony, the district court sustained the defendant's objection based upon plaintiff's failure to present the issue through inquiry of the witness when he was testifying in person. Exclusion of the proffered deposition testimony on this ground was, we believe, error. The proffered deposition testimony of the managing agent qualifies as vicarious admissions under Iowa Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). See, e.g., Grayson v. Williams, 256 F.2d 61, 66 (10th Cir. 1958); Truck Line, Inc., 121 F.Supp. 417, 419 (D.D.C.1954). As a result, plaintiff should have been allowed to read the particular statements from the deposition into evidence under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 144(b), without regard to the witness's availability at trial. Robinson v. Fort Dodge Limestone Co., 252 Iowa 270, 277-78, 106 N.W.2d 579, 583-84 (1960). Notwithstanding our finding of error in the exclusion of this evidence, we do not believe that this circumstance compels the granting of even a partial new trial. The proffered testimony could not have adversely affected the jury's determination on liability under any of the theories presented because the jury found in plaintiff's favor on all theories. In addition, plaintiff concedes that the excluded testimony has no bearing on actual damages. Although the excluded testimony would have a bearing on punitive damages, the jury awarded punitive damages to plaintiff. Consequently, we may reverse only if the admission of the excluded testimony likely would have resulted in a higher amount of punitive damages. We believe that such likelihood is sufficiently in doubt on the present record that an otherwise proper final judgment should not be overturned on this ground.