## Facts

- Clarence O. Nuttall worked as an engineman for Reading Company.
- On January 5, 1952, he reported for duty despite serious illness after a telephone call with his superior.
- Clarence’s widow, Florence M. Nuttall (as executrix), testified that she overheard the call in which Clarence said he was very ill, asked why he was being forced to report, and was told there were no substitutes and he must come in; immediately afterward he stated he would have to go.
- Co-workers observed that Clarence appeared in poor condition when he arrived to work and attributed to him a statement that he was not feeling well and that his request to be off had been refused.
- The estate alleged that Reading negligently required Clarence to work while ill in violation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and separately alleged a Boiler Inspection Act violation relating to the locomotive’s condition.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals should reinstate the first jury verdict by holding the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
2. Whether the district court erred at the second trial by excluding, as hearsay, testimony about the overheard phone conversation, Clarence’s immediate statement afterward, and Clarence’s contemporaneous statements to co-workers about his illness and denial of permission to be off.
3. Whether exclusion of that evidence improperly led to a directed verdict for the railroad on the FELA claim.

## Decision

- The court of appeals declined to reinstate the original plaintiff’s verdict, holding the district judge acted within Rule 59 discretion in ordering a new trial after the first verdict.
- The court held the district court erred at the second trial by excluding key statements as hearsay.
- The excluded statements were admissible under recognized hearsay exceptions, including contemporaneous statements (present sense impression) and statements of then-existing physical condition and mental state.
- Because the evidentiary errors affected the plaintiff’s ability to present a jury case under FELA, the judgment for Reading was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A district court has broad discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 to grant a new trial for traditional reasons, and appellate review is deferential.
- Statements describing an event while it is occurring or immediately thereafter may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when made close enough in time to reduce risks of memory error.
- Statements of then-existing physical condition, symptoms, or mental state may be admissible to show the declarant’s contemporaneous condition and intent.
- When admissible evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find employer negligence and causation under FELA, directing a verdict based on an evidentiary exclusion is improper.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit refused to reinstate the first verdict because the new-trial order fell within the trial judge’s discretion, but it reversed the defense judgment from the second trial and remanded because the district court wrongly excluded contemporaneous and state-of-mind statements that should have been heard by the jury on the FELA theory.


Nuttall v. Reading Co., 235 F.2d 546 (3d Cir. 1956)