This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Jerry, P's husband, worked for D as a mechanic. He was on 24-hour call and was provided with a company truck to move between work sites. Jerry was working at a job site, and P accompanied her husband to the site. They left the job site at approximately 3:30 p.m. and, on the way home stopped to visit Jerry's step-father and mother at their bar. They left the bar at approximately 12:00 a.m. Their truck collided with the fifth car of a Southern Pacific Railroad train four or five miles from the bar. P was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the accident. Jerry was not seriously injured. Jerry and P have since divorced, and Jerry moved away. His whereabouts were unknown to all parties at the time of trial. P sued D under respondeat superior. P had to prove that Jerry was driving the truck. The trial court excluded evidence tending to show that Jerry was driving. The evidence consisted of (1) a notice of injury report filed by Jerry with the Industrial Accident Board and (2) inculpating statements made by Jerry to P. The trial court sustained D's hearsay objection. D got the verdict, and the appeals court affirmed. P appealed. P argues that both the report and the inculpating statements are admissible under the declarations against interest exceptions to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(24).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.