Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey

488 U.S. 153 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Rainey's (P) decedent was killed when a Navy plane crashed. A report on the investigation concluded that the probable cause of the accident was pilot error. However, this conclusion was listed under 'opinion' and not under 'fact.' P filed a wrongful death action against the aircraft's manufacturer, Beech Aircraft Corporation (D). Having initially determined that an investigative report prepared pursuant to authority granted in the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (the JAG Report) was sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible, the trial judge admitted, over Ps’ objection, most of the JAG Report's 'opinions,' including a paragraph opining that pilot error was the most probable cause of the crash. This action also concerns an evidentiary ruling as to a second document. Rainey (P), who was himself a Navy flight instructor, had, some 6 months after the crash, written a detailed letter based on his own investigation in which he took issue with some of the JAG Report's findings and outlined his theory that equipment malfunction had been the most probable primary cause of the crash. The district court admitted the JAG report under the public investigatory report hearsay exception of the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (8)(c). Only portions of the investigatory report pointing to pilot error were admitted into evidence. Rainey (P) admitted on direct examination as an adverse witness that he had made certain statements arguably supporting a pilot error theory. His counsel attempted to ask him on cross-examination whether the letter did not also say that the most probable primary cause of the mishap was a loss of power due to equipment malfunction. Before Rainey (P) could answer, the court sustained a defense objection on the ground that the question asked for Rainey's (P) opinion, and cut off further questioning along this line. The jury entered a verdict for D. The Eleventh Circuit reversed this decision, holding that only the factual findings contained in a report could be admitted under Rule 803 (8)(c) and that the admitted evidence was not a fact, but an opinion. The Supreme Court granted review.