Jerry, P's husband, worked for D as a mechanic. He was on 24-hour call and was provided with a company truck to move between work sites. Jerry was working at a job site, and P accompanied her husband to the site. They left the job site at approximately 3:30 p.m. and, on the way home stopped to visit Jerry's step-father and mother at their bar. They left the bar at approximately 12:00 a.m. Their truck collided with the fifth car of a Southern Pacific Railroad train four or five miles from the bar. P was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the accident. Jerry was not seriously injured. Jerry and P have since divorced, and Jerry moved away. His whereabouts were unknown to all parties at the time of trial. P sued D under respondeat superior. P had to prove that Jerry was driving the truck. The trial court excluded evidence tending to show that Jerry was driving. The evidence consisted of (1) a notice of injury report filed by Jerry with the Industrial Accident Board and (2) inculpating statements made by Jerry to P. The trial court sustained D's hearsay objection. D got the verdict, and the appeals court affirmed. P appealed. P argues that both the report and the inculpating statements are admissible under the declarations against interest exceptions to the hearsay rule. Rule 803(24).