Lewis v. Baker
526 F.2d 470 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accident report prepared by an uninvolved employee in the regular course of business is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, so long as it possesses sufficient indicia of trustworthiness and was not created solely for litigation purposes.
Facts:
- Clifford J. Lewis, Jr. was employed by the Penn Central Railroad as a freight brakeman, a job which required him to ride freight cars down a slope and manually apply a brake.
- On October 26, 1969, Lewis climbed onto a boxcar and performed a successful test of the hand brake.
- After the car was released to roll down an incline, Lewis attempted to apply the brake again to slow the car's descent.
- Lewis alleged that the brake failed to hold, causing the car to accelerate dangerously.
- To avoid a potential crash, Lewis leaped from the moving car, sustaining a significant knee injury and aggravating a pre-existing psychiatric condition.
- Lewis had previously provided untruthful answers on his employment application by failing to disclose his prior psychiatric treatment and hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford J. Lewis, Jr. filed suit against Penn Central Railroad in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- During the trial, the court admitted a 'personal injury report' and an 'inspection report' prepared by the defendant's employees into evidence over the plaintiff's objections.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Penn Central Railroad.
- Judgment was entered for the defendants by the trial court.
- The plaintiff, Lewis, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking a new trial.
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 an accident report, prepared by employees not involved in the incident as part of a regular and required business procedure, fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule even though it was created with the knowledge that it might be used in future litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Waterman, Circuit Judge
Yes, such reports fall under the business records exception when they are prepared by uninvolved employees as part of a regular procedure and possess sufficient indicia of trustworthiness. The court distinguished this case from Palmer v. Hoffman, where an accident report was excluded because it was prepared by a locomotive engineer who was personally involved in the accident and thus had a strong motive to exculpate himself. Here, the employees who prepared the personal injury and inspection reports were not involved in the accident and had no such motive to fabricate. The reports were created pursuant to a regular business procedure, partly to comply with ICC reporting requirements and partly to ascertain whether equipment was defective to prevent future accidents. These factors provided the necessary 'earmarks of reliability' to qualify the reports as admissible business records, even if they might also be useful in litigation. The court further held that under the Federal Business Records Act, the entrant's lack of direct personal knowledge of the event affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the Supreme Court's holding in Palmer v. Hoffman. It establishes that the primary factor in determining the admissibility of an accident report is not whether litigation is anticipated, but whether the report was prepared under circumstances that suggest a lack of trustworthiness, such as a strong, self-serving motive on the part of the author. By focusing on the author's neutrality and the report's independent business purpose (like safety analysis or regulatory compliance), the case provides a clearer framework for admitting company-generated reports. This precedent makes it more difficult to exclude such reports simply by labeling them as 'litigation documents' if they are also part of routine business operations.
