Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Palmer v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureEvidenceErie doctrineBusiness recordsbusiness recordshearsayaccident reportsregular course of business

Facts

This case arose from a Massachusetts grade-crossing accident litigated in federal court in New York on diversity jurisdiction. Two days after the accident, the train engineer, who later died before trial, gave a signed statement at the railroad's freight office during an interview with an assistant superintendent and a representative of the Massachusetts Public Utilities Commission. The railroad offered that statement under the federal business-records statute, asserting it was made in the regular course of business, but the trial court excluded it. The case also involved a dispute over access to a witness's prior signed statement and over who bore the burden of proving contributory negligence on common-law and Massachusetts statutory claims.

Issue

Whether the deceased engineer's accident statement was admissible as a business record under the federal statute permitting records made in the regular course of business to be received in evidence. Also, whether the court should reverse based on the ruling about inspection of a witness statement or based on the contributory-negligence instruction.

Rule

A record is made in the "regular course" of business under the federal business-records statute only when it is made as part of the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a business and bears the reliability that comes from routine, day-to-day business operations. Records prepared primarily for use in litigation, such as employee accident reports, are not within the statute merely because the business regularly makes them. In diversity cases, the burden of proving contributory negligence is governed by local law, and objections to jury instructions must be sufficiently specific when part of the charge is correct.

🔒

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 a diversity negligence suit in federal court in Illinois, Lakefront Parcel Transit seeks to admit a signed statement made by its van driver three days after a collision in Chicago. The statement was taken by the company's safety manager under a standing practice of collecting driver narratives after every serious crash so the company can evaluate potential claims.

Is the driver's statement most likely admissible under the federal business-records rule described in the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority held that regularity alone is not enough. The key inquiry is whether the record is a routine reflection of day-to-day business operations or instead is calculated primarily for litigation. An employee's post-accident narrative collected to evaluate claims resembles the excluded accident statement: its primary utility is in litigating, not in conducting the enterprise's ordinary operations.