Handel v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.
252 A.D. 142, 297 N.Y.S. 216, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A declaration made by an injured party following an accident is inadmissible as part of the res gestae if it constitutes a narrative of a past event rather than a spontaneous utterance made concurrently with or immediately following the startling event, thereby falling within the hearsay rule.
Facts:
- On April 22, 1934, between 3:40 and 4:00 AM, off-duty police officer Handel was seen entering the defendant’s elevated railroad station at West Eighth Street, Brooklyn.
- Around 4:00 AM, Mrs. Ida Pfeifer was awakened by screaming and saw a train stop, then observed a "big bundle" (later identified as Handel) fall from the side door of the last car to Park Place below the elevated structure.
- Mrs. Pfeifer immediately ran to Park Place, a distance of about seventy feet, and found Handel moaning, severely injured, with one shoe missing and his pants torn.
- John Leyton, a nearby resident, heard the train and moaning, and arrived at Handel's location approximately two and a half minutes after hearing the train, finding Mrs. Pfeifer already present.
- Handel, while profoundly shocked and suffering from numerous injuries including a concussion, broken hand, fractured femur, broken pelvis, and ruptured bladder, attempted to make a statement: "Save me. Help me—why did that conductor close the door on me."
- Handel later died from his injuries.
- Officer Downing, investigating later, found two dark drag marks on the station platform extending 125-150 feet, and a broken shoe wedged between the rail and a wooden beam about 1,000 feet from the station entrance.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff-appellant’s intestate’s estate initiated an action to recover damages for Handel's death, alleging negligence by the defendant-respondent.
- During the trial, the plaintiff offered Handel's declaration as evidence, but the trial court excluded it.
- The trial court granted a nonsuit, dismissing the complaint, on the grounds that without the excluded declaration, the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie cause of action for negligence.
- The plaintiff-appellant appealed the judgment of dismissal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Department.
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 declaration made by an injured person, stating the cause of their injury, qualify for admission as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule when the court deems it a narrative of a past event rather than a spontaneous exclamation?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No, the declaration made by an injured person stating the cause of their injury does not qualify for admission as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule when it is a narrative of a past event. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, stating that the plaintiff's proofs failed to establish a prima facie cause of action because the claimed declaration of the intestate was incompetent evidence and properly excluded by the trial court. Citing precedents such as Waldele v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. and Greener v. General Electric Co., the court reasoned that the declaration was a narrative of a past event and therefore fell within the hearsay rule, not the res gestae exception.
Dissenting - Close, J.
Yes, the declaration made by an injured person stating the cause of their injury should be admissible as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, provided it is spontaneous and made within a time limit that presumably precludes fabrication. Justice Close argued that the trial court erred in excluding Handel's statement. He cited People v. Del Vermo for a broader rule, allowing statements made after an event if they are spontaneously expressive of a startling occurrence and made within a timeframe precluding fabrication. Handel's statement ("Save me. Help me—why did that conductor close the door on me") was spontaneous, as indicated by the preceding pleas for help and its interrogative form, unlike the narrative statements in Greener. The time elapsed (approximately 2.5 minutes after falling) was sufficiently brief, especially given Handel's severe injuries and profound shock, which would preclude any opportunity for fabrication. Therefore, the evidence should have been admitted, and its exclusion warranted a reversal and new trial.
Analysis:
This case highlights the enduring judicial struggle to define the boundaries of the res gestae (spontaneous exclamation) exception to the hearsay rule. The majority's adherence to a strict, contemporaneous interpretation, viewing the statement as a "narrative of a past event," contrasts sharply with the dissent's embrace of a more flexible "spontaneous exclamation" test from People v. Del Vermo, which prioritizes spontaneity and the unlikelihood of fabrication despite a brief time lapse. This division demonstrates the New York courts' internal inconsistencies in applying these exceptions, creating uncertainty for litigants in future negligence and death cases where direct testimony from the injured party is unavailable. The outcome emphasizes that even with compelling circumstances suggesting spontaneity, a declaration can still be excluded if deemed a narrative rather than an immediate, unreflective outburst.
