## Facts

- B & K Rentals and Sales Co., Inc. rented warehouse space from Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. to store heavy equipment.
- A fire occurred in the warehouse, killing Universal employee Walter Johnson and destroying most of B & K’s equipment.
- Leonard Grimes, the only other Universal employee present, described to a fire investigator shortly after the fire that Johnson had been using an acetylene torch.
- At trial, a fire investigator opined that Johnson’s torch use caused the fire and stated he relied primarily on Grimes’s account in forming that opinion.
- A jury found for B & K and awarded approximately $125,000 in damages.
- The trial court granted Universal’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), concluding the causation evidence should be excluded because it depended on hearsay.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the JNOV.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s post-incident statements to an investigator, concerning workplace events, are admissible against the employer as a party-opponent admission when made during the employment relationship and within the scope of employment.
2. Whether an expert’s causation opinion may be admitted and credited when substantially based on such employee statements.
3. Whether, with that evidence admitted, the trial court properly granted JNOV against the jury’s verdict.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court and the JNOV.
- The court held Grimes’s statements were admissible against Universal as non-hearsay party-opponent admissions under Maryland’s rule paralleling Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).
- The court rejected prior Maryland limitations requiring “speaking authority” or treatment as “res gestae” for employee statements to bind the employer.
- The court held the fire investigator’s expert causation testimony, grounded substantially on Grimes’s admissible statements, was properly admissible.
- Viewing the evidence favorably to B & K, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find negligence and causation; the jury verdict was reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- An employee’s statement is admissible against the employer as a party-opponent admission when it (1) is made by an agent or employee, (2) concerns a matter within the scope of employment, and (3) is made during the existence of the employment relationship.
- Admissibility under this rule does not require proof that the employee had authority to speak for the employer, nor that the statement was contemporaneous with the event.
- Expert opinions may be based on information reasonably relied upon in the field; when the underlying employee statements are admissible as party admissions, reliance on them does not render the expert opinion inadmissible as hearsay-based.
- JNOV is improper where, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, a reasonable jury could find for that party on causation and liability.

## Conclusion

The court modernized Maryland’s treatment of employee statements by admitting them as party-opponent admissions when made within the scope and duration of employment, upheld expert causation testimony relying on those admissions, and reversed JNOV to reinstate the plaintiff’s jury verdict.


B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 596 A.2d 640 (Md. 1991)