Nuttall v. Reading Company
235 F.2d 546 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A decedent's contemporaneous statements made during and immediately after a conversation may be admitted into evidence under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule to prove not only the declarant's state of mind but also to prove that the other party's actions induced that state of mind.
Facts:
- Clarence Nuttall was employed as an Engineman for Reading Co.
- On January 4, 1952, Nuttall appeared to have a slight cold.
- On the morning of January 5, 1952, from his home, Nuttall telephoned his yardmaster, George Marquette.
- Nuttall's wife, the plaintiff, overheard her husband's side of the conversation, during which he stated he was very sick and protested being forced to come to work.
- Immediately after hanging up the phone, Nuttall said to his wife, "I guess I will have to go."
- Nuttall went to work that day, where his condition visibly worsened, according to his co-workers.
- Nuttall later died, and his wife alleged his death was a result of being forced to work in inclement weather while he was ill.
Procedural Posture:
- The Executrix of Clarence Nuttall's estate sued Reading Co. in federal district court.
- The first trial resulted in a $30,000 jury verdict for the plaintiff.
- The district court judge set aside the verdict and granted the defendant's motion for a new trial.
- In the second trial, the judge excluded key evidence, including testimony about a telephone call Nuttall made.
- The district court directed a verdict for the defendant on the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim.
- The jury found for the defendant on the Boiler Inspection Act claim.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment from the second trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 a deceased employee's statements, made during and immediately after a telephone call with a supervisor, admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule to prove both the employee's belief that he was being coerced to work and that the supervisor's unheard statements caused that belief?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodrich, Circuit Judge
Yes, a deceased employee's statements made during and immediately after a telephone call with a supervisor are admissible to prove both the employee's state of mind and the cause of that state of mind. The court reasoned that the testimony about Nuttall's side of the conversation and his subsequent statement to his wife is admissible under two theories. First, as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence of his state of mind—that he believed he was being coerced. Second, as an exception to the hearsay rule for declarations of a person's state of mind. Because the statements were made contemporaneously with the event they described (the phone call), they are considered reliable evidence not only of what Nuttall was thinking but also tend to prove that his superior's actions on the other end of the line induced that state of mind. The court explicitly rejected the argument that such statements should be excluded as 'self-serving,' calling that doctrine an outdated remnant of the discarded rule that parties could not testify in their own cases.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, particularly in wrongful death and FELA cases where the decedent's testimony is unavailable. By allowing a declarant's statements to serve as proof of the external event causing their mental state, the court provides a crucial pathway for plaintiffs to establish employer coercion. The ruling diminishes the utility of a 'self-serving' objection to such evidence, signaling a modern, more functional approach to hearsay exceptions. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs to get critical evidence before a jury in cases where an employee was allegedly pressured into working under unsafe conditions but is not alive to testify.
Unlock the full brief for Nuttall v. Reading Company