484 F. App'x 625
2d Cir.2012Background
- Feis sued under FTCA for a slip-and-fall at the VA Hospital in Northport, NY, on May 12, 2005, claiming negligence in wet-floor conditions.
- At his deposition, Feis described an unidentified cleaner saying, 'I'm sorry I left water on the floor. The squeegee didn't pick it all up.'
- The district court granted summary judgment (Feb. 9, 2011) ruling Feis failed to show the VA created or had notice of the slippery condition and excluded the unidentified individual's statement as inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
- On remand (Oct. 1, 2010), the district court again found the unidentified statement insufficient to prove the declarant was a VA employee, thus not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
- The Second Circuit reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion, then conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment decision, and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the unidentified statement | Feis contends the statement is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as a statement by a VA employee | The declarant’s status as a VA employee was insufficiently proven to qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) | No abuse of discretion; statement excluded |
| Whether Feis presented sufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice or creation of the slippery condition | Feis asserts the wet floor was caused by VA negligence and previously observed water on floors | Feis failed to show the VA created or knew of the condition or had constructive notice | No genuine issue; district court properly granted summary judgment for the government |
Key Cases Cited
- LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (two-step review of evidentiary rulings then de novo summary judgment standard)
- Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997) (two-level review framework for summary judgment with evidentiary considerations)
- Wilson v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 625 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard—no genuine issue of material fact; view in non-movant’s favor)
- Meloff v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (wide latitude in evidentiary rulings under Rule 801(d)(2)(D))
- Marcic v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., 397 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2005) (precedent on admissibility of statements under agency principles)
- United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2010) (range of permissible evidentiary rulings; manifest error standard)