Which of the following is an example of a vicarious opposing party admission?

In the context of vicarious opposing party admissions, the correct answer demonstrates that a statement made by the celebrity spokesperson can create a presumption that the party represented has adopted or conceded to that statement, particularly if the spokesperson is deemed to have authority to speak on behalf of the party. This concept is rooted in the principle that statements made by an agent or representative concerning a matter within the scope of their authority can be attributed to the principal or party they represent.

A celebrity spokesperson typically has a specific relationship with the party, often representing the party’s interests or viewpoints in public or media. Therefore, any statements made by the spokesperson that pertain to the party's interests can be construed as admissions by the party, particularly in contexts where the spokesperson's role is directly linked to the subject of the matter at hand.

In contrast, statements made by a friend of the party, a random witness, or in the media unrelated to the party do not bear the same weight because those individuals have no authority to speak on behalf of the party in a legal context. The relevance of an opposing party admission requires a connection between the statement and the party it is attributed to, and only the spokesperson's statement meets that criterion.