Mark R. Cook v. Frederick B. Hoppin
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22207, 783 F.2d 684, 19 Fed. R. Serv. 1603 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A new trial is warranted where a district court improperly admits prejudicial hearsay evidence, particularly medical records lacking trustworthiness and not pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, and provides erroneous jury instructions contrary to state substantive law, even if other evidence was properly admitted or other legal arguments were correctly decided.
Facts:
- Mark R. Cook traveled from Indiana to Lincoln, Illinois, to attend a friend's wedding.
- Cook made arrangements to stay at the apartment of Larry and Debbie Alley, located in an apartment complex owned by Defendant-Appellee Frederick B. Hoppin.
- While at the apartment complex, Cook fell while climbing an exterior stairway that led to the Alleys’ upstairs apartment and landed on a concrete sidewalk below.
- As a result of the fall, Cook sustained a probable basilar skull fracture and suffers from a permanent hearing impairment.
- Cook's expert witness testified that the stairway on which the fall occurred contained several design flaws, including a railing not constructed in accordance with good architectural practices or the building code then in effect, stairs made of smooth construction grade lumber painted with regular house paint that should have had a nonslip surface, and inadequate lighting in the stairway area.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark R. Cook brought a diversity action in federal district court against Frederick B. Hoppin, alleging that the stairway had been negligently constructed and maintained.
- After a jury trial, a verdict was returned in Hoppin’s favor.
- Cook filed a post-trial motion requesting that the district court grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of Hoppin’s negligence and a new trial on the issue of Cook’s alleged contributory negligence and on the issue of damages, or in the alternative, a new trial on all issues.
- The district court denied Cook's post-trial motion.
- Cook, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Hoppin as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by improperly admitting medical records as evidence, giving an erroneous "mere accident" jury instruction, or incorrectly denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict, thereby warranting a new trial for the plaintiff in a personal injury diversity action?
Opinions:
Majority - Harlington Wood, Jr.
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting prejudicial hearsay evidence contained in medical records and by giving an erroneous "mere accident" jury instruction, thus warranting a new trial. The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Denise Glossop under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 (relevance) and 403 (unfair prejudice), as her testimony possessed sufficient probative value and was not unfairly prejudicial simply because it was detrimental to Cook’s case. However, the district court did abuse its discretion by admitting statements in Cook's hospital records indicating he was injured "while engaged in a shoving or wrestling match." These statements were inadmissible under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)) because the declarant was not hospital staff, under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception (Rule 803(4)) because they related to fault and were not pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, and under the catchall exception (Rule 803(24)) due to a lack of "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" given the unknown declarant and circumstances. The court determined that the erroneous admission of these medical record statements was prejudicial, as a jury could reasonably rely on them to conclude Cook's negligence was the proximate cause of his injury. Furthermore, applying Illinois substantive law, the court held that the district court erred in giving a "mere accident" jury instruction because there was evidence in the record from which the jury could have concluded Hoppin was negligent, making such an instruction inappropriate under Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction No. 12.03 and related case law. The court, however, affirmed the district court's decision to allow Hoppin to argue contributory negligence for Cook's failure to use an interior stairway, as the question of reasonableness is generally one for the jury under Illinois’ comparative negligence law, and also affirmed the denial of Cook's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the evidence did not so overwhelmingly favor Cook under the Pedrick standard that no contrary verdict could ever stand.
Analysis:
This case highlights the strict application of federal rules of evidence, particularly concerning hearsay exceptions, and the importance of adhering to state substantive law for jury instructions in diversity actions. The ruling underscores that even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and it clarifies that statements within medical records relating to fault, rather than diagnosis or treatment, are generally inadmissible hearsay. Furthermore, it provides clear guidance on when a "mere accident" instruction is inappropriate under Illinois law, emphasizing that its use is reversible error if any evidence of negligence exists. The ruling serves as a critical reminder for trial courts to carefully scrutinize the foundation for admitting evidence and the propriety of jury instructions.
