Brief Fact Summary. The respondent-plaintiff (the “respondent”) brought several claims of negligence against the petitioner-defendant (the “petitioner”) railroad, and a wrongful death action on behalf of his deceased wife. The petitioner attempted to admit, as evidence, statements made by the since-deceased train engineer.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Business records admissible under the hearsay exception rules do not include accident reports prepared for litigation even if the reports are prepared in a routine, systematic process.
Unless they can be used in court without the task of calling those who at all stages had a part in the transactions recorded, nobody need ever pay a debt, if only his creditor does a large enough business.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the business record hearsay exception encompasses accident reports that, although not the inherent nature of the business, are nonetheless recorded in a routine manner?
Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) affirmed the trial court’s decision to not admit the engineer’s statements. The Supreme Court reasoned that the statements were not in a record inherent for a railroad company. The Supreme Court was concerned that the legislature had no intention to make the business record exception so broad in scope that any business could abuse the rule by declaring that preparation for litigation was a routine practice of the business.
The decision came shortly after the business record exception was amended to broaden the scope. The former rule required authentication from a person who personally entered the information into the record.
The Supreme Court did not want to expand the exception to anything outside the day-to-day routine records unless expressly authorized by the legislature. The accident report in this case does affect the business, but the importance the report has to the business does not negate the fact that the report was prepared in lieu of potential litigation.
The engineer had a motive to be untrustworthy in the interview. As noted in the decision, the petitioner attempted to claim contributory negligence, and the engineer would have been liable as well.