## Facts

- Elmer Curtis Turbyfill was injured at International Harvester’s used-truck lot in St. Joseph, Missouri while attempting to start a truck that would not start.
- Turbyfill poured gasoline from a small can into the carburetor as a companion attempted to start the engine.
- The engine backfired, igniting the gasoline can in Turbyfill’s hands and causing severe burns.
- The mechanic assisting, Oakley Anderson, later wrote and signed a detailed, contemporaneous account of the incident at a supervisor’s request, outside the supervisor’s presence.
- Anderson died before trial, and the defendant offered his handwritten statement at trial.
- The plaintiff did not timely demand a jury trial; the case was tried on liability to an advisory jury, with the court entering judgment for the defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri substantive law, rather than Michigan law, governed the negligence claim in a diversity action filed in Michigan federal court.
2. Whether Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine applied to impose liability despite contributory negligence principles.
3. Whether Anderson’s handwritten statement was admissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) (residual exception) given Anderson’s unavailability.
4. Whether any asserted legal or evidentiary error warranted a new trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held Missouri substantive law applied because the injury occurred in Missouri and Michigan conflict-of-laws rules controlled in diversity.
- The court held Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine did not apply on these facts because the event was sudden and did not present a later opportunity for the defendant to avoid the harm.
- The court admitted Anderson’s statement under Rule 804(b)(5), finding sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, materiality, superior probative value given unavailability, and consistency with the interests of justice.
- The judgment for the defendant stood based on the court’s finding that the plaintiff failed to prove defendant negligence and was contributorily negligent, consistent with the advisory jury’s liability verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity applies the forum state’s conflict-of-laws rules to determine the governing substantive law.
- Under Missouri negligence law as applied, contributory negligence could bar recovery.
- Missouri’s humanitarian doctrine (akin to last clear chance) requires a later, feasible opportunity for the defendant to avert harm after the plaintiff enters imminent peril; it is not triggered by an essentially instantaneous accident.
- A deceased witness is “unavailable” under Fed. R. Evid. 804(a); a statement not fitting enumerated exceptions may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, is offered on a material fact, is more probative than reasonably obtainable alternatives, and admission serves the rules’ purposes and the interests of justice.
- A new trial is not warranted absent legal error that prejudices substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court refused to disturb a defense judgment in a negligence action arising from a gasoline ignition injury, holding that Missouri law governed, the humanitarian doctrine did not fit the sudden-accident facts, and a deceased mechanic’s contemporaneous written account was properly admitted under the residual hearsay exception; no claimed error justified a new trial.


Turbyfill v. Int’l Harvester Co., 486 F. Supp. 232 (E.D. Mich. 1980)