At trial, a homeowner testifies that after discovering flooding, she called the plumber who responded, “I’ll come by tomorrow and redo the installation for free.” Is this testimony admissible as evidence?

At trial, a homeowner testifies that after discovering flooding, she called the plumber who responded, “I’ll come by tomorrow and redo the installation for free.” Is this testimony admissible as evidence?

• A. No, because it is hearsay
• B. Yes, as a party admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)
• C. Yes, as a spontaneous remark not subject to evidence rules
• D. No, because it concerns a future event not yet happened

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that statements by a party opponent are not treated as hearsay. When a party to the case (or someone acting as that party’s agent) makes a statement about a matter within the scope of their relationship, that statement can be admitted against the party as an admission. In this scenario, the plumber’s statement—“I’ll come by tomorrow and redo the installation for free”—was made by someone who is part of the contract or service arrangement with the homeowner. If the homeowner sues the plumber, the plumber is the opposing party, and his statement qualifies as a party admission. Since it concerns the services under the contract and promises about future performance, it is admissible to prove what the defendant-plumber agreed to or promised. So the testimony is admissible because it falls under the rule allowing admissions by a party opponent (or by that party’s agent) to be used against that party.

The key idea is that statements by a party opponent are not treated as hearsay. When a party to the case (or someone acting as that party’s agent) makes a statement about a matter within the scope of their relationship, that statement can be admitted against the party as an admission.

In this scenario, the plumber’s statement—“I’ll come by tomorrow and redo the installation for free”—was made by someone who is part of the contract or service arrangement with the homeowner. If the homeowner sues the plumber, the plumber is the opposing party, and his statement qualifies as a party admission. Since it concerns the services under the contract and promises about future performance, it is admissible to prove what the defendant-plumber agreed to or promised.

So the testimony is admissible because it falls under the rule allowing admissions by a party opponent (or by that party’s agent) to be used against that party.