## Facts

- Olson was a passenger in a car driven by Hodges and was injured when the car crashed.
- Olson sued Hodges for personal injuries, alleging Hodges drove recklessly.
- At trial, Olson testified Hodges had driven recklessly immediately before the collision.
- On cross-examination, Hodges introduced a written statement Olson had signed shortly after the accident stating, in substance, that Hodges was a careful driver and had not been driving carelessly.
- Olson testified he was hospitalized and sedated when he signed, did not recall making any statement, and had no chance to read what he signed.
- The trial court admitted the writing but instructed the jury it could consider the statement only in evaluating Olson’s credibility, not as evidence that Hodges actually drove carefully.
- The jury returned a verdict for Olson.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff’s prior inconsistent written statement may be considered by the jury as substantive evidence of the facts asserted, or only for impeachment of the plaintiff’s credibility.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Olson.
- The court held the trial court correctly limited the jury’s use of Olson’s prior written statement to impeachment purposes only.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the statement with a limiting instruction.

## Legal Principles

- A witness’s prior inconsistent statement, including a party-witness’s statement, is admissible to impeach credibility but is not affirmative proof of the facts asserted in the statement.
- Treating a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement as substantive evidence raises hearsay and reliability concerns; the proper function of such a statement is to test credibility, not to prove the truth of its contents.
- A limiting instruction properly preserves the distinction between impeachment evidence and substantive evidence when a prior inconsistent statement is admitted.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a verdict for the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff’s prior written statement contradicting his trial testimony could be used to challenge his credibility but could not be treated as substantive evidence that the defendant exercised due care.


Olson v. Hodges, 19 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1945)