Nuttall v. Reading Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956 · Evidence

235 F.2d 546 (1956)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencepresent sense impressionstate of mindcontemporaneous statementstelephone conversationhearsay exceptioncircumstantial evidencebusiness records

Facts

Nuttall's estate claimed that the railroad forced him to work while he was sick and unfit, leading to fatal exposure to inclement weather. On the morning in question, his wife overheard his side of a telephone call with the yardmaster in which he said he was very sick, could not come to work, and asked why he was being forced to come in; after hanging up, he told her, 'I guess I will have to go.' Plaintiff also sought to introduce written statements taken from two railroad employees after suit had been filed, and testimony from coworker O'Hara that Nuttall later said he had asked to be off and was refused. The trial court excluded those items at the second trial, leaving plaintiff without proof on liability under FELA.

Issue

Whether, in a FELA case alleging that the railroad compelled a sick employee to work, the widow could introduce Nuttall's contemporaneous statements during and immediately after his telephone call with his superior, and O'Hara's testimony recounting similar same-day statements, to show both Nuttall's state of mind and that the employer was pressuring him to work. The court also considered whether written employee statements obtained by the railroad after suit as part of its investigation were admissible against the railroad.

Rule

A person's out-of-court statements are admissible to prove that person's then-existing state of mind, and statements made during and immediately following an event may also be admitted as contemporaneous characterizations of that event because their timing reduces risks of faulty memory and conscious misrepresentation. Such statements may be used both as nonhearsay circumstantial evidence of what was in the declarant's mind and under the state-of-mind hearsay exception. By contrast, employee statements obtained after suit and in preparation for trial are not business records under the Federal Business Records Act, are not made admissible merely because the employer collected them, and are not declarations against interest unless the statement is palpably against the declarant's interest and to the declarant's immediate prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, freight mechanic Daniel Ortiz woke up feverish and called his shift supervisor. His roommate, Kevin Marsh, heard Daniel say, "I'm too sick to come in," then, "Why are you making me report like this?" and, after hanging up, Daniel said, "I guess I have to go," before leaving for work.

In Daniel's later negligence suit against the railroad, is Kevin's testimony about Daniel's statements most likely admissible to show that Daniel went to work because of employer pressure?

Explanation. The majority held that a declarant's statements during and immediately after a telephone conversation with a superior were admissible both as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind and under the state-of-mind exception. Their substantial contemporaneousness also supported an inference about the other participant's conduct because the statements characterized the event as it was being perceived, reducing concerns about memory lapse and conscious misrepresentation.