Evidence Digest: PALMER V. HOFFMAN (318 U.S. 109)

Topic: Entries in the Course of Business (Rule 130, Section 43)

PALMER V. HOFFMAN (318 U.S. 109)

Facts:
The respondent and his spouse were injured at a railroad crossing. The jury deliberated whether the train failed to blow a whistle, ring a bell or have a light burning in the front of a train. The petitioner attempted to admit statements from the train engineer made in an interview two days after the accident. The engineer died before the trial. The petitioner attempted to admit the engineer’s statements as a business record, arguing that they were made in the course of a routine accident report. The trial court did not allow the statements to be admitted and found the petitioner liable.

Issue:
Whether the routine accident report qualifies as admissible under the business record exception?

Held:
NO. Accident reports do not qualify as a business record hearsay exception. For the exception to apply, the statements should have been in a record inherent for a railroad company, and not merely part of a routine. In this case, the accident report does not affect the business, thus, is inadmissible.