Please explain how to know that a statement is talking about a then-existing state of mind vs. this, "I'm sorry for what I did," which is an admission by agent of a party.

Please give an example to show when a statement is being offered to show a then existing state of mind, vs. an admission.

Question A cyclist sued a defendant corporation for injuries sustained when she was hit by a truck owned by the defendant and driven by its employee, who was making deliveries for the defendant. The day after the accident, the employee visited the cyclist in the hospital and said, \"I'm sorry for what | did.\" At trial, the employee has testified that he exercised due care. Why is the cyclist's testimony relating what the defendant's employee said at the hospital admissible to prove negligence? A It is a prior inconsistent statement. B It is a statement against interest. C It is a statement by a party-opponent's agent. D It is a statement of then-existing state of mind