## Facts

- James Shields was killed in a vehicle collision caused by Patrick Grandstaff.
- After the crash, Grandstaff’s blood alcohol content was measured at approximately 0.12%.
- Before the collision, Grandstaff drank at Joe’s Moravian Lounge, a tavern owned by Joseph Reddo.
- Debra Shields, as personal representative of James Shields’s estate, sued Reddo under Michigan’s dramshop statute, alleging the bar served Grandstaff alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated and that the unlawful service contributed to the death.
- A former employee of the bar, Patricia Dudash, gave deposition testimony supporting the claim that Grandstaff appeared visibly intoxicated when served.
- At trial, Shields sought to read Dudash’s deposition to the jury as substantive evidence even though Dudash did not appear to testify.
- The trial court excluded the deposition as hearsay because Shields did not show that Dudash was unavailable to testify at trial.
- The jury found Grandstaff liable but returned a verdict finding no dramshop liability against Reddo, and judgment was entered for Reddo.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the deposition should have been admitted.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may introduce a former employee’s deposition testimony for its truth at trial without showing the witness is “unavailable” as required for the former-testimony hearsay exception (MRE 804(b)(1).
2. Whether the Michigan court rule governing when a deposition may be used at trial permits admission of deposition testimony as substantive evidence even when the Michigan Rules of Evidence would treat it as inadmissible hearsay.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court.
- The Court held the deposition was hearsay when offered for its truth and was inadmissible because Shields did not establish that Dudash was unavailable as required by MRE 804(b)(1).
- The Court held the court rule on deposition use does not create a free-standing hearsay exception and does not allow admission of deposition testimony that fails to satisfy the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
- The verdict and judgment in favor of Reddo on the dramshop claim remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Deposition testimony offered at trial to prove the truth of what the deponent said is hearsay and is barred by MRE 802 unless an exception applies.
- Under MRE 804(b)(1), former testimony (including a deposition) is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable under MRE 804(a) and the opposing party previously had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine.
- The party seeking to use former testimony bears the burden to show the witness’s unavailability.
- Michigan court rules that address the permissible uses of depositions at trial are procedural and must be applied consistently with the Michigan Rules of Evidence; they do not expand hearsay exceptions.
- Michigan evidentiary doctrine favors live, in-court testimony subject to contemporaneous cross-examination, and substitute proof like depositions is allowed only within established evidentiary limits.

## Conclusion

Shields v. Reddo holds that a former employee’s deposition cannot be read to the jury as substantive evidence in a dramshop case absent proof the witness is unavailable under MRE 804, and that court rules authorizing certain deposition uses do not override the hearsay restrictions in the Michigan Rules of Evidence.


Shields v. Reddo, 443 N.W.2d 145 (1989)