City of Dallas v. Donovan
768 S.W.2d 905 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, a statement is admissible if it relates to a startling event or condition and was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event, even if the statement's subject matter concerns a past event rather than a description of the startling event itself.
Facts:
- On January 14, 1984, Michael and Victoria Donovan and their children were involved in a vehicle collision at an intersection within the Dallas city limits.
- A stop sign that should have controlled the Donovans' direction of travel was down at the time of the collision.
- Minutes after the accident, a middle-aged woman arrived at the scene.
- Ladd William Backhaus, a witness, observed that the woman became very excited and upset upon seeing the injured children.
- Backhaus described her as emotional, with shaking hands and a 'crackling' voice.
- While in this state of excitement, the woman told Backhaus that she had reported the downed stop sign to the city days prior to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Victoria Donovan sued the City of Dallas for negligence in a Texas trial court.
- During the jury trial, the court admitted testimony from witness Ladd William Backhaus regarding a statement made by an unidentified woman at the accident scene.
- The jury found that a third party had removed the stop sign, the city had actual notice that the sign was down, and its failure to replace the sign was a proximate cause of the collision.
- The trial court entered a judgment against the City of Dallas based on the jury's verdict.
- The City of Dallas, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with the Donovans as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a statement made by a declarant under the stress of excitement caused by witnessing a car accident qualify as an admissible excited utterance under Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 803(2) when the statement refers to a past event—reporting a downed stop sign—rather than describing the accident itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, Justice.
Yes. A statement made under the stress of a startling event qualifies as an excited utterance so long as it 'relates' to the event, which is a broader standard than requiring the statement to describe or explain the event itself. The court reasoned that the federal and Texas rules of evidence for excited utterances do not confine the subject matter to descriptions of the startling event. Instead, the statement need only 'relate' to it. Here, the woman's statement about her prior report to the city was probative of actual notice, which directly relates to the cause of the accident. The court, adopting the federal advisory committee's note on Rule 803(2), held that this causal relationship satisfies the requirement. The critical time element is not when the subject of the statement occurred, but whether the declarant was still under the stress of excitement from the startling event when making the statement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the scope of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule in Texas. By adopting the broader federal interpretation that a statement need only 'relate' to, rather than 'describe,' the startling event, the court makes it easier to admit statements that provide causal context. This precedent is significant in negligence cases, particularly against governmental entities or property owners, as it allows for the admission of spontaneous statements about prior notice of a dangerous condition. The ruling solidifies that the declarant's emotional state at the time of the statement is paramount, while the temporal location of the statement's content is secondary.
