Section 16.6 Declaration of Agent or Employee

• Library: Evidence 2017

A. (§16.6) Declaration of Agent or Employee

A corporation can only act through its agents. The statement of a corporate agent is an admission of a party-opponent when the statement is made while the agent is acting within the scope of the agent’s authority. The Federal Rules of Evidence describe this as the statement of a “party in an individual or representative capacity.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Bynote v. Nat’l Super Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 124 (Mo. banc 1995). Before Bynote, some cases allowed only statements made by an agent or employee who was acting in an executive capacity to be considered corporate admissions. Id. at 123–24 (discussing the history of corporate admissions). See Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107, 126 (Mo. banc 2015) (rejecting an argument that the statement was made “outside” of the employee’s authority). The Court in Cox noted that “a company executive generally ‘has broad authority to bind the principal by his or her statements.’” Id. at 126 (quoting Bynote, 891 S.W.2d at 124).

Obviously, statements made by corporate executives would usually be considered admissions of the corporation. But to limit corporate admissions only to executives made no sense because the actions of any corporate agent or employee could be binding on the corporation if taken while acting within the scope of the person’s employment. If a corporation could be liable for its truck driver’s negligence while the driver was driving within the scope of the driver’s authority, why wouldn’t a statement by the driver about the accident be admissible against the corporation?

In Bynote, 891 S.W.2d 117, statements by a grocery store cashier and bagger about the presence of water on the floor were held to be admissions of the corporate defendant in a slip-and-fall case because it was within the scope of every employee’s duties to tell someone to clean up a spill and within the scope of a bagger’s duties to clean it up. Id. at 124. More importantly, the statements were relevant to the issues involved. Stanbrough v. Vitek Solutions, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). After Bynote, statements of an agent or employee will be binding on the employer as long as the statements relate to a subject matter within the agent’s or employee’s scope of authority.

It should be noted that the test is whether the agent or employee was acting within the scope of authority, not the scope of employment. This distinction is evidently intended to...