## Facts

- A fatal collision occurred at the intersection of U.S. Highways 50 and 63 in Osage County, Missouri.
- Opal Carpenter rode as a passenger in a car driven north on Highway 63 by her brother, Loren Babbitt; traffic on 63 approaching the intersection was controlled by a stop sign and a red signal light.
- Thomas Grothoff drove a Central Dairy truck east on Highway 50 and struck the left side of the Babbitt car near the center of the intersection.
- After the collision, Grothoff returned to the scene and spoke with Opal as she attempted to get out of the car.
- At trial, Grothoff testified that he told Opal her car pulled out in front of him and that she replied, “Yes, I know, it’s not your fault.”
- Lewis Carpenter, Opal’s husband, filed a wrongful-death action alleging negligence; defendants offered Opal’s statement to show Grothoff was not at fault.

## Issues

1. Whether a decedent’s accident-scene statement expressing an opinion on fault and exonerating the defendant is admissible as a declaration against interest in a wrongful-death negligence action where the decedent is not a party and has no privity with a party.

## Decision

- The trial court admitted the statement over a hearsay objection as a declaration against interest, and the jury returned a verdict for defendants.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed.
- The court held the statement was not admissible as a declaration against interest and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Declarations against interest are distinct from party admissions; a statement that would be admissible as a party admission if the declarant were a litigant is not automatically admissible when offered in litigation involving different parties.
- For the declaration-against-interest exception, the statement must be sufficiently against the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest when made to supply reliability.
- An accident-scene opinion attributing “fault” or stating the defendant is “not at fault” is an evaluative conclusion on ultimate responsibility, not a reliable, self-damaging factual assertion for purposes of the exception.
- Admitting an unavailable declarant’s untested opinion on fault risks substituting hearsay for the jury’s determination of negligence and is prejudicial where liability is the central dispute.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the decedent’s hearsay statement exonerating the truck driver was an inadmissible opinion on fault and did not qualify as a declaration against interest in a wrongful-death negligence action.


Carpenter v. Davis, 435 S.W.2d 382 (Mo. 1968)