Case v. New York Central Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 01 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | Docket 28462.,No. 288,288 |
| Citation | 329 F.2d 936 |
| Parties | Archie K. CASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
J. Murray Dunn, Syracuse, N. Y. (McElroy, Young, Martin & Dunn), Syracuse, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Howard G. Munson, Syracuse, N. Y. (Hiscock, Cowie, Bruce, Lee & Mawhinney), Syracuse, N. Y., for defendant-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal by a plaintiff in an FELA case from an adverse judgment entered on a verdict after a trial held in Syracuse, N. Y., before Judge Brennan and a jury, raises a single question as to the admissibility of evidence.
Case, a conductor employed by the New York Central, sought damages for a laceration of his leg and other injuries suffered at the Central's Albany, N. Y. station on December 15, 1960. The fact of injury was not disputed; the cause was. Case claimed that as he stepped off a platform to cross the tracks and board a car, his left foot went down a hole about 15" to 18" deep, causing him to fall backwards. The defense was that in the area where Case claimed to have fallen, no hole was reported, found or repaired.
Case had testified that the accident might have been witnessed by a brakeman named Moore who was sitting in the coach which he boarded thereafter and, more positively, by a fireman on a yard engine. Although he called neither as a witness, failure by the Central to produce them (or others working in the Albany yard at the time), if unexplained, would have given rise to an inference favorable to him. "The failure to bring before the tribunal some circumstance, document, or witness, when either the party himself or his opponent claims that the facts would thereby be elucidated, serves to indicate, as the most natural inference, that the party fears to do so, and this fear is some evidence that the circumstance or document or witness, if brought, would have exposed facts unfavorable to the party." 2 Wigmore, Evidence 162 (3d ed. 1940). This principle is frequently applied to failure to call an employee having knowledge of the facts; it suffices to cite a quite similar FELA case, Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Kelly, 84 F.2d 569, 572 (8 Cir. 1936).
The inference, however, may not be drawn unless "it would be natural for him the party to produce the witness if the facts known by him had been favorable," 2 Wigmore, supra, 166. Since it would not be "natural" to produce a witness who is unavailable or who is not believed to possess testimonial knowledge, it is competent for a party to excuse the non-production on these bases. To do that the Central called Culnan, a claim agent in its Albany office, to testify on two matters. One was that his supervisor had asked him to interview Moore, whereupon investigation showed that Moore was in Florida and would not return until after the trial. The other, which gives rise to this appeal, was that, at the request of trial counsel, he had made inquiry as to how many switch engines had been working in the Albany depot yard on December 15, 1960; that he had found there were three, each having an engineer and a fireman; and that he had interviewed the six men and taken statements from them. On objection Judge Brennan did not allow the statements to be received in evidence but permitted Culnan to answer a question framed as follows:
The judge then remarked "That finishes that"; it did.
Appellant complains that by this ruling the judge allowed the unsworn and unconfronted testimony of six men to be thrown into the scales against him. Although that would indeed have been egregious error, nothing of the sort took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teong-Chan Gaw v. Commissioner
...witness, a party may attempt, as petitioner does here, to explain the reason that witness was not called. See Case v. New York Central R.R., 329 F.2d 936, 937-938 (2d Cir. 1964); Schumacher v. United States, 216 F.2d 780, 787-788 (8th Cir. 1954). If the failure to present a witness is not s......
-
US v. A & N Cleaners and Launderers, Inc.
...natural inference from this is that her testimony "would have exposed facts unfavorable to" the Government's case. Case v. New York C.R. Co., 329 F.2d 936, 937 (2d Cir.1964). In September 1978, the Putnam County Health Department published a notice informing Village of Brewster residents of......
-
State v. Padilla
...said testimony, when plaintiffs raised the issue at their trial brief, was refused. (96 So.2d at 917). In Case v. New York Central Railroad Company, 329 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1964), plaintiff sought to draw a favorable inference from the fact that the defendant railroad did not call as witnesse......
-
U.S. v. Latimer
...witnesses, properly sworn and subject to cross-examination, or by the introduction of other evidence at trial. See Case v. New York Central R. Co., 329 F.2d 936 (2d Cir.); United States v. McCaskill, 481 F.2d 855 (8th ...
-
Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
...34 A. 429 (1896). 33. Muhleisen v. Eberhardt, 21 So. 2d 235 (La. Ct. App. 1945). 34. Id. at 237. See also Case v. New York Cent. R.R., 329 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1964). 35. 329 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1964). See also Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark v. Gonzalez, 512 F.2d 1307 (1st Cir. 1975). 36. Case v.......