## Facts

- Jessee Huff drove a truck-tractor manufactured by White Motor Corporation near Terre Haute, Indiana, when it jackknifed, struck a guardrail, and collided with an overpass support.
- The truck’s fuel tank ruptured and ignited, engulfing the cab; Huff suffered severe burns and died nine days later.
- Huff’s widow, as administratrix, brought an Indiana wrongful-death action alleging defective design of the truck’s fuel system and resulting post-collision fire.
- At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of Huff’s age, life and work-life expectancy, earnings, and the marital relationship to support compensatory damages.
- The jury returned a $700,000 compensatory verdict, including a substantial component for loss of counseling, guidance, love, and affection.
- The trial court excluded testimony from Huff’s friend about a statement Huff made while hospitalized, treating it as hearsay.
- The trial court refused to submit punitive damages under Indiana’s wrongful-death statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the decedent’s hospital statement, offered through a friend, should have been admitted under the residual hearsay exceptions in Federal Rules of Evidence 803(24) and 804(b)(5), and whether declarant competence was a prerequisite.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the $700,000 compensatory verdict as excessive.
3. Whether punitive damages are recoverable under Indiana’s wrongful-death statute, and whether the jury should have been instructed on punitive damages.

## Decision

- The court held the hospital statement should have been admitted under FRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5) unless the declarant was mentally incompetent when it was made.
- The case was remanded for the district court to determine the declarant’s competence at the time of the statement.
- The court directed a new trial if the declarant is found competent, because exclusion of the statement was error.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disturb the verdict as excessive.
- The court held punitive damages were not available under the applicable Indiana wrongful-death statute and affirmed the refusal to submit punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under the residual hearsay exceptions (FRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5)), a statement not covered by a specific exception may be admitted if it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, is material, is more probative than reasonably available alternatives, and admission serves the interests of justice.
- Declarant mental competence at the time of the statement is a threshold factual question for the trial court and may bar admission even where other trustworthiness factors support admission.
- Appellate review of a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury’s compensatory award as excessive is highly deferential and turns on abuse of discretion.
- Indiana’s wrongful-death statute permits compensatory recovery but does not authorize punitive damages absent legislative authorization.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit conditionally vacated and remanded for a competence finding on a decedent’s excluded hospital statement, requiring a new trial if competence is found; it otherwise sustained the compensatory award against an excessiveness challenge and affirmed that punitive damages are unavailable under Indiana’s wrongful-death statute.


Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286 (7th Cir. 1979)