Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises
181 F.3d 1041 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance investigator's report containing employee statements about a co-worker's illness is admissible as evidence against the employer under the business records and party-opponent admission exceptions to the hearsay rule, because a shipowner's duty to investigate a seaman's claim for maintenance and cure creates a corresponding duty for its employees to cooperate, bringing their statements within the scope of employment.
Facts:
- In January 1995, Hawaiian Cruises hired Peter Sana to work in the galley of its vessel, the Navatek I.
- Sana worked a normal shift on March 9 and 10, 1995.
- After leaving work on March 10, Sana's father observed that Sana was walking differently, his hands were shaking, and he had a scratch on his hairline; Sana told his father he had bumped his head at work.
- On March 11, Sana became unresponsive at a church event and was taken to a clinic, where a CAT scan was negative for head trauma.
- On March 12, Sana's brother informed Hawaiian Cruises that Sana was sick and unable to work.
- On March 13, Sana's condition deteriorated, and he was hospitalized with seizures and confused behavior.
- Doctors diagnosed Sana with brain inflammation (encephalitis) but could not definitively determine the cause or when the illness began.
- On March 16, 1995, Sana fell into a coma, in which he remains.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 8, 1995, Sana's counsel made a demand to Hawaiian Cruises for maintenance and cure.
- After an investigation, Hawaiian Cruises denied the request.
- Sana filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii seeking maintenance and cure and damages under the Jones Act.
- Hawaiian Cruises filed an answer and was later granted leave to amend its answer to plead a limitation of liability.
- Following a bench trial, the district court excluded an insurance investigator's (Rutherford) report as inadmissible hearsay.
- The district court entered judgment for defendant Hawaiian Cruises, concluding Sana failed to prove his illness manifested while in service of the vessel.
- Sana, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the denial of his maintenance and cure claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding an insurance investigator's report as hearsay in a seaman's maintenance and cure claim, where the report contains statements from the seaman's co-workers about when his illness began?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, Circuit Judge
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the report, because each layer of hearsay within the report satisfies an exception to the hearsay rule. First, Sana's statements to his co-workers about feeling ill are admissible under Rule 803(3) as statements of his then-existing physical condition. Second, the co-workers' statements to the insurance investigator are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as admissions by a party-opponent's servants, because the shipowner's duty to investigate maintenance and cure claims under maritime law gives its employees a corresponding duty to cooperate, placing their statements within the scope of their employment. Third, the investigator's report is admissible as a business record under Rule 803(6), as the general rule excluding reports made in anticipation of litigation does not apply when the report is offered by the opposing party against the party who created it, thus ensuring its trustworthiness. Fulfilling the duty to investigate is a 'routine' and 'regular' part of business in the maritime industry.
Analysis:
This decision significantly aids seamen in maintenance and cure claims by broadening the admissibility of employer-generated investigation reports. It establishes that a shipowner's duty to investigate creates a corresponding duty for employees to cooperate, thereby bringing their statements to investigators within the 'scope of employment' for the party-opponent admission exception to hearsay. The ruling also narrows the 'anticipation of litigation' limitation on the business records exception, focusing on trustworthiness and allowing a report's admission when offered against the party that created it. This reinforces the liberal interpretation traditionally afforded to the maintenance and cure doctrine.
