Court Opinion

ID: 9772574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:22:54.523581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:45.809357
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and in the Alternative for Transfer to Banc
PER CURIAM.
 We have not held as plaintiff’s counsel states in his suggestions in support of his Motion that a foundation must be laid to impeach a party by a contradictory statement by first confronting him with the contradictory statement. We have held exactly the opposite, namely that “anything said by the party-opponent may be used against him as an admission” without asking him anything about it; but have also held that a party’s self-serving utterances are not admissible unless they fall within some exception to the hearsay rule such as res gestae.
The situation we have in this case is not one of rebuttal of a statement of plaintiff, in conflict with her theory of the case, offered hy the defendant. Instead plaintiff’s own counsel on direct examination asked Dr. Meyer, his own witness (in a deposition) : “What history did she give ?” (meaning the plaintiff.) The answer he received was: “She stated she fell on an icy street.” Plaintiff was never asked whether she made that statement, no explanation of *934it was ever offered and there was no claim of surprise. Thus plaintiff wants us to hold that it was proper to put in evidence one statement made by her to rebut the truthfulness of another statement, which her own witness says she made, without any denial or explanation of such statement by her. Plaintiff’s counsel says he had to read the whole deposition to get the benefit of Dr. Meyer’s testimony at the trial but what he overlooks is that he did not have to ask Dr. Meyer that question when he took his deposition. Therefore we reaffirm our ruling that, under these circumstances, it was error to admit plaintiff’s self-serving statement made to the workmen’s compensation insurance adjustor.
The motion is overruled.