Nager Electric Co. v. Charles Benjamin, Inc.
317 F. Supp. 645, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10090 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made during a prolonged and startling event, such as a major fire, qualifies as an admissible spontaneous utterance if the declarant was still under the stress and nervous excitement of the event when the statement was made.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs' machinery was stored in a warehouse owned and operated by the defendants.
- A massive fire broke out in the defendants' warehouse, ultimately destroying the plaintiffs' machinery.
- During the fire, defendants' employee, Wayne Steinard, was attempting to start a forklift truck using a battery jumper cable.
- While the fire was still raging, Fire Lt. P. W. Short interviewed Steinard and another employee, John McElwee, near the scene.
- In these interviews, Steinard stated that while trying to start the forklift, gasoline spilled on the floor and was ignited by a spark from the jumper cables, which in turn ignited nearby cardboard cartons.
- During and shortly after the interviews, both Steinard and McElwee were observed by witnesses to be 'upset', 'excited', and 'nervous'.
Procedural Posture:
- Five plaintiffs filed actions against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover damages for property lost in a fire.
- The cases were consolidated for a jury trial.
- The first trial resulted in a hung jury, which was unable to reach a verdict.
- At the conclusion of a second trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Defendants subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which is the subject of this opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are statements made by employees to a fire official about the cause of a fire admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule when the statements were made while a massive fire was still raging and the employees were visibly upset and excited?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Joseph S. Lord, III
Yes. The statements made by the employees are admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The court applied the established test, finding that a startling event had occurred and the statements were made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent. The court reasoned that a massive, ongoing fire is not a momentary shock but an 'on-going terror' that keeps declarants under its sway. Given that the statements were made at the height of the conflagration while the employees were observed to be 'upset' and 'excited,' their reflective powers were still in abeyance, rendering their utterances spontaneous and reliable. The court cited precedents like Shafer v. Lacock where statements made while a fire was in progress were held to be admissible.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the spontaneous utterance (or excited utterance) exception to hearsay in the context of prolonged events. It establishes that the 'startling occurrence' need not be instantaneous, like an auto accident, but can be a continuous event like a conflagration. The critical factor is not merely the passage of time from the event's inception, but whether the declarant remains under the 'nervous excitement' of the event when making the statement. This interpretation provides flexibility in admitting evidence from ongoing crises where a declarant's spontaneity is maintained by the continuing stress of the situation.
