Jewell v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 135 F.3d 361

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

1998

Chapter

6

Title

Evidence A Contemporary Approach

Page

186

Topic

Hearsay

Quick Notes

A car was hit by a train.  One of the passengers named Brittany made statements to 6 witnesses saying there was an argument between the driver (Greg Jewell) and his wife (Shelia Jewell).  The wife sued the train (CSX) for negligence.  The wife tried to exclude Brittanys testimony with a motion in limine, but it was denied. The defense was able to admit Brittanys statement as an admission under rule 801(d)(2)(A).

801(d)(2)(A)

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

• A statement is not hearsay if--
• (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is
  • (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

• Whether an admission is allowed by a party, if the parties statement might be untrustworthy due to head trauma or brain damage?  Yes, there is no guarantee of trustworthiness is required in the case of an admission.

Procedure

Trial

o         Directed verdict in favor of CSX on the issue of the extra-hazardous crossing.

o         The jury returned a verdict in favor of CSX.

Appellant

o         Affirmed

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Jewell (Appellant)

Df CSX Transp. (Appellant)

Party Description

o          At about 6:00 p.m. on March 11, 1990, Greg Jewell was driving his pickup truck west on Anthouston-Frog Island Road with his wife Sheila Jewell, and his six-year old daughter Brittney Jewell.

o         As his truck crossed the tracks it was struck by a southbound CSX train which approached the crossing from Greg Jewell's right.

o         All three passengers were thrown from the truck. Greg Jewell was killed and his wife and daughter were injured.

Alleged Negligence

o         They alleged that CSX was negligent in failing to sound a warning as the train approached the crossing, that the train crew failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the train and that the subject crossing was extra-hazardous.

Motion in Limine

o         Pl wanted to exclude testimony regarding statements made by Brittney conversation alleged argument between Greg and Sheila immediately before the collision.

o         When she told him a train was coming, she was told to be quiet.

District Court

o         Directed verdict in favor of CSX on the issue of the extra-hazardous crossing.

o         The jury returned a verdict in favor of CSX.

Appellants contend Trial court erred in admitting statement

o         The trial court committed reversible error by admitting statements made by Brittney Jewell regarding an alleged argument between Greg and Sheila Jewell immediately before the collision.

Trial Court Denied motion in limine and admitted the admission

o         The trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).

CSX Introduced 6 witness

o           At trial CSX introduced testimony from six witnesses that Brittney told them [6 witnesses] that Greg and Sheila had been arguing immediately prior to the accident, and that when she told them a train was coming, she was told to be quiet.

Appellants Said Brittney had brain damage (Unreliable)

o         Appellants offered evidence that Brittney suffered permanent [**11]  brain damage as a result of the accident.

No Memory of accident

o         Her physicians testified that she had retrograde amnesia and had no memory of the accident.

Tendency to grasp on to anything

o         They also testified that patients recovering from a coma have a tendency to grasp onto anything they hear to supplement their memory.

Jewell - May be Brittney overheard speculation for family members

o         They offered testimony from family members that Brittney may have overheard their conversations where they speculated about the cause of the accident, including the possibility of an argument between Greg and Sheila.

Brittney told simultaneous inaccurate statements

o         Even those Brittney told about the argument testified that she simultaneously made statements about the accident that were clearly inaccurate.

Rule 801(d)(2)(A)

o         Provides that a statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is "the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity." Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).

Jewell Brittanys statement were not made in her individual capacity

o         Appellants contend that because Brittney suffered brain damage and has no "independent" recollection of the accident, her statements about the argument were not made in her "individual" capacity.

Court Lacks logical consistency

o         They have confused the terms "independent" and "individual."

o         "Independent" and "individual" are not synonymous.

o         Brittney was the source of the statements.

o         She made the statements in her individual capacity, whether or not she had an independent recollection of the matters she spoke about.

Trustworthiness

o         Trustworthiness is not a separate requirement for admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)

Estoppel Theory

o         The admissibility of statements of a party-opponent is grounded not in the presumed trustworthiness of the statements, but on "a kind of estoppel or waiver theory, that a party should be entitled to rely on his opponent's statements."

Adversary System rather than hearsay rule

o         Admissions by a party-opponent are excluded from the category of hearsay "on the theory that their admissibility in evidence is the result of the adversary system rather than satisfaction of the conditions of the hearsay rule." Evid. 801 advisory committee's note.

No guarantee of trustworthiness is required in the case of an admission.

o         The freedom which admissions have enjoyed from technical demands of searching for an assurance of trustworthiness in some against-interest circumstance, and from the restrictive influences of the opinion rule and the rule requiring firsthand knowledge, when taken with the apparently prevalent satisfaction with the results, calls for generous treatment of this avenue to admissibility.

Affirmed

Rules

801(d)(2)(A)

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

• A statement is not hearsay if--
• (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is
  • (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity

Class Notes

Motion in limine

o          (Latin: "at the threshold") is a motion, made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial. This is done in judge's chambers, out of hearing of the jury. If a question is to be decided in limine, it will be for the judge to decide. Usually it is used to shield the jury from possibly inadmissible and harmful evidence.