Washington v. Taseca Homes, Inc., 310 Or. 783

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that a defendant's deposition statement that the plaintiff had done nothing careless to cause an automobile collision was admissible as a party-opponent admission. The court concluded that the statement was not excluded under the lay-opinion rule, and that its exclusion substantially affected the plaintiff's rights because it was relevant both substantively and for impeachment. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A relevant statement by a party-opponent concerning a material fact is not excluded under OEC 701 merely because it is phrased as an opinion or legal conclusion. The defendant's deposition answer that plaintiff had done nothing careless that caused the collision was admissible.
2. The deposition answer was also admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach defendant's trial testimony.
3. Excluding the deposition admission was error that affected a substantial right of the plaintiff and required a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party-opponent's deposition admission that the plaintiff did nothing careless that caused the collision was inadmissible under OEC 701 because it expressed an opinion or legal conclusion.
2. Whether exclusion of that admission affected a substantial right and constituted reversible error under OEC 103.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded