Lexplug logoLexplug

Johnson v. Lutz

Unknown
170 N.E. 517 (1930)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a record to be admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the information within the record must have been provided by an individual with a business duty to report such information.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff's intestate was riding a motorcycle when he collided with the defendants' truck at a street intersection.
  • As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's intestate was killed.
  • A police officer, who did not witness the accident, arrived at the scene after the collision occurred.
  • The police officer interviewed several third-party bystanders who were present at the scene when he arrived.
  • The officer then created an official police report of the accident based on the hearsay statements provided by these bystanders.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff, representing the deceased's estate, brought a wrongful death action against the defendants in a New York trial court.
  • During the trial, the defendants offered a police report of the accident into evidence under the business records exception, section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act.
  • The trial judge excluded the police report from evidence.
  • A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
  • The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court's exclusion of the police report was an error.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police report containing hearsay statements from third-party witnesses, who have no business duty to report the information, qualify as an admissible business record under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Hubbs, J.

No. A police report does not qualify as an admissible business record when it contains information from third parties who are not under a business duty to report such information. The purpose of section 374-a was to permit writings made in the regular course of business to be received in evidence, provided the record was made as part of the duty of the person making it, or on information from persons who were under a duty to impart such information. The statute was not intended to permit the admission of entries based on voluntary hearsay statements made by third parties not engaged in the business or under any duty in relation to it. While the police officer had a duty to create the report, the bystanders who supplied the information had no corresponding business duty, making their statements inadmissible hearsay.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a crucial limitation on the business records exception, often referred to as the 'business duty' or 'double-duty' rule. It clarifies that the exception's rationale of reliability only applies when every person in the chain of communication, from the observer to the recorder, is acting within their regular business duty. This prevents parties from using business records as a conduit to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay from uninterested or unreliable third-party witnesses. The ruling has had a profound impact on the admissibility of police reports and other records that rely on information from outside the business or organization.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Johnson v. Lutz (1930) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Lutz