## Facts

- Katherine Davenport bought a Chevrolet automobile from Ourisman-Mandell Chevrolet, Inc.
- Davenport claimed she paid the full retail price for a new car, but the car was actually a demonstrator used by the dealer’s salesmen for about ten months.
- The dealer contended Davenport knew the car was a demonstrator and understood its prior use.
- A key dispute concerned how much the car had been driven before sale; Davenport asserted it had been driven more than 7,000 miles.
- Mr. Davenport testified that shortly after delivery he found lubrication/service stickers on the inside of the car door.
- Over objection, he testified to the mileage and dates written on the stickers, including mileages of 2,708 and 7,244.
- The dealer objected under the best evidence rule because the stickers were original writings and were available on the car outside the courthouse.
- A jury awarded Davenport $805 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages.
- The trial court denied the dealer’s motion for a new trial but granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to punitive damages.
- Davenport appealed the punitive-damages ruling, and the dealer cross-appealed; the appellate court addressed an evidentiary error requiring a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court violated the best evidence rule by allowing oral testimony about mileage entries on service stickers without requiring production of the stickers when they were available.
2. Whether the erroneous admission of that testimony on a central factual dispute required reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that admitting testimony about the stickers’ contents without producing the stickers violated the best evidence rule.
- The stickers were the original writings, were available, and no adequate excuse for nonproduction was shown.
- The error concerned a crucial issue (prior mileage and use) relevant to the alleged misrepresentation and damages.
- The judgment was set aside and the case was remanded for a new trial; other issues were not reached because retrial was required.

## Legal Principles

- When the contents of a writing are in issue, the original writing must be produced if available.
- Secondary evidence of a writing’s contents (such as oral testimony from memory) is inadmissible absent a sufficient excuse for nonproduction (e.g., loss or unavailability).
- Improper admission of secondary evidence is reversible error when it bears on a material, disputed fact and is not harmless.

## Conclusion

Because the mileage information on available service stickers was proved through oral testimony instead of the stickers themselves, the trial court violated the best evidence rule on a material issue, and the case was remanded for a new trial.


Davenport v. Ourisman-Mandell Chevrolet, Inc., 195 A.2d 743 (D.C. 1963)