## Facts

- Patrick Reed died in an industrial accident involving machinery fitted with a safety device.
- Mary Reed, as administratrix of Patrick Reed’s estate, sued William H. McCord for wrongful death, alleging negligence in the placement or use of the safety device at a work site under McCord’s charge.
- At a coroner’s inquest investigating the death, McCord made statements describing how the accident occurred and attributing it to the safety device not being properly placed.
- A stenographer recorded McCord’s inquest testimony.
- In the civil trial, the plaintiff called the inquest stenographer to recount McCord’s statements.
- McCord objected that he did not witness the accident and that his inquest statements were based on what others told him, making them hearsay.
- The trial court admitted the testimony; the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. After a unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division of a verdict not directed by the court, could the Court of Appeals review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the negligence finding?
2. Were McCord’s statements at the coroner’s inquest admissible against him as party admissions, despite his alleged lack of personal knowledge?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review sufficiency of the evidence following a unanimous Appellate Division affirmance of a jury verdict not directed by the court.
- The court held McCord’s inquest statements were admissible as admissions of a party-opponent.
- The court ruled that an admission may be received even if the speaker lacked personal knowledge; that circumstance affects weight, not admissibility.
- One judge dissented.

## Legal Principles

- After the relevant constitutional limitation on appellate review, the Court of Appeals may not review a unanimous Appellate Division determination that there was evidence supporting or tending to support a jury verdict not directed by the trial court.
- In a civil action, a party’s out-of-court statements offered against that party are competent evidence as admissions if they relate to facts material to the issues.
- A party admission is admissible even if it resembles hearsay in form, contains opinion, or is made without personal knowledge; the opponent may challenge credibility and probative force before the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed a wrongful-death judgment, holding it could not reconsider evidentiary sufficiency after a unanimous affirmance and that the defendant’s coroner’s inquest statements were admissible as party admissions, with any lack of firsthand knowledge bearing on weight rather than admissibility.


Reed v. McCord, 160 N.Y. 330, 54 N.E. 737 (N.Y. 1899)