Johnson v. Lutz

New York Court of Appeals · 1930 · Evidence

253 N.Y. 124 (1930)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceBusiness recordsHearsaybusiness records exceptionregular course of businessduty to reportpolice reportoutsider statements

Facts

The plaintiff sought damages for wrongful death after the plaintiff's intestate was killed in a collision between his motorcycle and the defendants' truck at a street intersection. The testimony sharply conflicted about how the collision occurred. A policeman later filed an accident report at the station house, but he had not been present when the accident happened. The report was based on hearsay statements from third persons at the scene, and it was unclear whether those persons had witnessed the accident or were repeating what others had told them.

Issue

Does section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act make a police accident report admissible when the officer who prepared it lacked personal knowledge and recorded statements from third persons who were under no shown duty to report the facts?

Rule

Section 374-a permits admission of a writing or record made in the regular course of business only when the record is made as part of the maker's duty, or from information imparted by persons who are themselves under a duty to impart that information. The statute does not admit entries founded on voluntary hearsay statements from third parties not engaged in the business or under any duty relating to it.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a delivery van struck a bicyclist at an intersection. A patrol officer arrived ten minutes later and completed a standard incident report based entirely on statements from two pedestrians standing nearby; nothing showed that either pedestrian had any duty to report accidents to the police.

In a later civil suit, the van company offers the officer's report as a business record. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that regular recordkeeping alone is not enough. A record may be admitted when made in the regular course of business as part of the maker's duty, or from information supplied by someone under a duty to provide it. Here, the officer's report was based on statements from bystanders with no shown duty to report, so the reliability underlying the rule is absent. The report should be excluded.