Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 56
Theodore H. Friedman, New York City (Arum, Friedman & Katz, Henry
Isaacson, David G. Miller, New York City), for plaintiff-appellant.
M. E. DeOrchis, New York City (Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens,
Stephen K. Carr, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before MANSFIELD, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge:
boat deck to his forecastle on the port side of the main deck. Specifically his
claims, as recorded in the pretrial order signed by the district court and by
counsel for the parties, were that appellee was negligent, inter alia, "in
permitting the steps of the ladder to remain in a slippery, wet, slushy, greasy
and dangerous condition without taking the necessary steps and precautions to
clean and remove the slippery substances; in creating a slippery, wet and slushy
condition about the deck where soogieing [sic] operations were being
conducted . . .", and that the vessel was unseaworthy, inter alia, because the
steps of the ladder were permitted "to remain in a wet, slippery, slushy and
dangerous condition" as a result of the shipowner's failure "to clean and
remove, the slippery, greasy and soapy conditions of the steps of the said
ladder."
3
Appellee's response in the pretrial order and at trial was a denial that the
accident had occurred as alleged. It contended that if Applebaum injured
himself while descending a ladder, the injuries were the result of his lack of
care and not the unseaworthiness of the vessel or its negligence.
morning.
6
ladder between the officers' and main decks and stated that he and other
members of the deck department had soogeed on that day. However, the offer
was rejected as to any part of the statement.
9
Although at one time prior consistent statements were not generally admitted
for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness after impeachment through his prior
inconsistent statements, United States v. Sherman, 171 F.2d 619, 621-622 (2d
Cir. 1948), cert. denied sub nom. Grimaldi v. United States, 337 U.S. 931, 69
S.Ct. 1484, 93 L.Ed. 1738 (1949); 4 Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 1126 (3d ed.
1940), that principle has in recent years been liberalized. The rule, as thus
modified, was recently summarized in United States v. Zito, 467 F.2d 1401 at
p. 1403 (2d Cir. 1972), where this Court stated
Since the same exception is made by New York courts, see Moore v.
Leventhal, 303 N.Y. 534, 104 N.E.2d 892 (1952); 1 Mottla's New York
Evidence Sec. 462 (2d ed. 1966), we would in any event be bound, to the extent
that New York courts have modified the general rule against admission of prior
consistent statements, to honor that modification. Rule 43(a), F.R.Civ.P.
12
Applying the rule in the present case, there was ample support in the record for
Judge Bonsal's conclusion that defense counsel's impeachment of Donegan's
trial testimony by introduction of his prior inconsistent statement amounted to a
charge that his deposition testimony received at trial, insofar as it related to
certain crucial issues (i. e., where Applebaum had fallen and whether his fall
had been caused by soogeeing), was a recently concocted fabrication. From the
opening statements throughout the trial there was a sharp conflict between the
parties as to where and how Applebaum had been injured. His version, which
was supported in varying degrees by each of four witnesses he called (including
Donegan), was that he had fallen on the portside ladder because of a slippery,
unseaworthy condition caused by the runoff of soapy soogee solution.
Appellee, on the other hand, contended that the accident had not occurred in the
place or manner claimed by Applebaum and, indeed, that while there had been
washing down on the day of the accident there had been no soogeeing, which
Applebaum had heavily relied upon as the basis of his claim of an unseaworthy
condition. In support of its version the shipowner introduced evidence that
when Applebaum reported the accident three days after it had allegedly
occurred he was recorded by the purser as having said that he had been injured
while coming down the inside midshiphouse ladder because his shoes were wet
from the decks. Mere water on the decks, of course, would not ordinarily
amount to an unseaworthy condition, and there was no suggestion of an
unseaworthy condition on the inside ladder. Appellee further pointed to two
Master's Certificates signed by Applebaum in which he requested medical
treatment. In the first Applebaum stated that he "must have gotten [his] shoes
wet on the decks because when [he] came in and started to walk down the
stairs," (emphasis supplied), he slipped and was injured. In the second, he
remarked that he had suffered a second fall, which was "on the same stairs" as
the first, and at trial both he and the purser testified that the second fall
occurred on the inside ladder. Appellee also presented witnesses who testified
that while there had been washing down on the day of the accident there had
been no soogeeing.
13
In short, the shipowner from the outset took the position that "the stories that
these gentlemen tell are diametrically opposed. There is absolutely something
wrong with what someone is saying in this case." The record does not support
appellee's present contention that there was "no real contradiction" between
Donegan's trial deposition and the statement given by him to its investigator on
May 13, 1971. A logical inference from the latter statement (given without an
opportunity to refresh his recollection by reference to the statement given by
him in November, 1968, 2 1/2 years earlier) was that he was deliberately giving
false testimony when he testified only one month later in his deposition taken
on June 16, 1971, that he had witnessed the accident on the portside and that he
had been soogeeing the bulkheads. The effort to impeach Donegan through the
use of that statement was tantamount to a charge of recent fabrication.
14
Although the able trial judge accurately concluded that since introduction of
Donegan's prior inconsistent statement amounted to a charge that his trial
deposition was a recent fabrication the first condition for admission of his
earlier consistent statement was satisfied, we fail to find any support for the
judge's conclusion that the latter should have been excluded because a motive
to fabricate had existed 2 1/2 years earlier, when it was given. Donegan was not
a party to Applebaum's lawsuit and had no stake in the outcome. There was no
evidence of promises, coercion, or prejudice. The most that can be said in
support of the early existence of such a motive was that Donegan had been
acquainted with Applebaum as a shipmate and that the statement had been
obtained from him by an investigator employed by Applebaum's counsel.
Although, as the trial judge observed, the earlier statement probably had been
prepared by an investigator "who was trying to make the best case for the
plaintiff in bringing a lawsuit," the same could be said of the later inconsistent
statement, which was obtained from Donegan by defense counsel. While each
statement was signed by Donegan, the text of each does not appear to be in
Donegan's handwriting. However, Donegan was far from inarticulate. He had
attended college for two years, and his deposition testimony reveals him to
have been alert, intelligent and coherent. Even if a motive on his part to help his
friend Applebaum had arguably existed at the time of the prior consistent
statement, as well as at the time of the later deposition used at trial, there is no
showing that it did not also exist at the time of the intervening statement
obtained by defense counsel.
15
Under all of the circumstances we are satisfied that the exclusion of Donegan's
earlier consistent statement was error. Without it the jury could have inferred
from his contradictory statement, given only one month prior to the deposition
used at trial, that the deposition, to the extent that it was inconsistent, was a
deliberate misstatement designed to assist Applebaum's case or that he had no
accurate memory of the events on the day of the accident. The prior consistent
statement, in sharp contrast to both of the later statements, however, was made
only six weeks after the accident and provides a suitable base for application of
the suggestion made by McCormick, Evidence Sec. 49 at 109, that even when
the self-contradiction amounts only to an imputation of inaccurate memory a
"consistent statement made when the event was recent and memory fresh
should be received in support." Felice v. Long Island R. R. Co., supra, 426 F.2d
at 198 n.6. Here, whatever the inference to be drawn from Donegan's selfcontradiction, the consistent statement, made so soon after the accident had
occurred, was necessary to give the jury a complete basis upon which to judge
the credibility to be attached to his trial deposition's version of the accident, see
United States v. Fayette, 388 F.2d 728, 733-735 (2d Cir. 1968). Because
Donegan's credibility had to be gauged solely on the basis of written testimony,
it was especially important for the jury, deprived of any chance to view his
demeanor, to have the opportunity to compare the statements he gave at
different intervals after the accident to the representatives of different parties.
Rule 43, F.R.Civ.P., expresses a policy in favor of the reception of relevant
evidence, and we would be remiss were we to uphold the exclusion of
Donegan's prior consistent statement in the circumstances of this case.
16
Moreover, unlike Donegan's prior consistent statement which predated his later
statements, Felice's consistent statements postdated the earlier inconsistent
statements relied on by defendant, and the fact that they were made after he
began to contemplate the institution of suit provided a strong basis for the
inference that a motive to fabricate had developed and that he was trying to
make a self-serving record for use at trial. No such circumstances are found
here.
17
We cannot agree that the exclusion of Donegan's prior consistent statement was
harmless error. The jurors, during the course of their two-day deliberations,
sent out a note indicating that they could not decide on whether soogeeing took
place on the day of the accident. Although counsel for appellant requested that
the court advise the jury that soogeeing, as distinguished from a washdown
procedure, was not a required element of appellant's case and that they did not
have to find that it was the soogeeing which caused the wet, slippery condition
of the ladder, the jury was instructed that the question of soogeeing had to be
answered to obtain a verdict.2 Subsequently the jury sent another note to Judge
Bonsal asking if it is negligence to soogee on the day of a fire and boat drill.
Appellee points to the interpretation of this sequence made by Applebaum's
counsel at the trial that the "jury has now passed that soogeeing question," and
to the cumulative testimony of appellant's other witnesses that soogeeing had
taken place, to bolster its contention that the absence of Donegan's prior
consistent statement from the jury's attention was harmless.
18
19
21
The other errors asserted by appellant are without merit. Since the verdict was
in favor of the defendant, it is "extremely improbable that the jury ever reached
the only issue to which assumption of risk would have any relevancy [i. e.,
contributory negligence]," Clark v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 328 F.2d 591, 595596 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S.Ct. 1943, 12 L.Ed.2d 1054
(1964) (F.E.L.A.). In any event the court's charge was sufficient to clarify the
absence of assumption of risk as a defense. Finally, the court's limited
encouragement to the jury to continue its efforts to reach a unanimous verdict
without surrendering their individual convictions was well within permissible
bounds. See, e. g., United States v. Martinez, 446 F.2d 118, 119-120 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 404 U.S. 944, 92 S.Ct. 297, 30 L.Ed.2d 259 (1971); United States
v. Bowles, 428 F.2d 592, 595-597 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 928, 91 S.Ct.
193, 27 L.Ed.2d 188 (1970); United States v. Hynes, 424 F.2d 754 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 399 U.S. 933, 90 S.Ct. 70, 26 L.Ed.2d 804 (1970).
22
Appellant's contention that the trial judge erred in charging the jury that
appellant assumed the burden of proving that the accident happened on the
outside ladder and in substantially the manner claimed by him is likewise
without merit. In the pretrial order and throughout trial appellant and his
counsel contended that the accident occurred on the outside, portside ladder on
September 30, 1968. Appellant and three other witnesses (Dixon, Landor and
Donegan) so testified. It was only after appellee introduced as part of its defense
at trial recorded statements, made by appellant a few days after the alleged
accident, to the effect that he had fallen on an inside ladder (without any