17. Palmer v. Hoffman (318 U.S. 109)

A signed statement of a railroad engineer, since deceased, giving his version of a grade crossing accident in which the locomotive he was operating was involved, and made two days after the accident, when he was interviewed by an official of the company and a representative of a state commission, held not made "in the regular course" of business within the meaning of the Act of June 20, 1936, and not admissible as evidence there under.

Facts:
Mrs. Palmer was hit and killed. Mr. Palmer sued the train company for negligence. Palmer alleged that the train did not ring its bell, blow its whistle, or have its lights on as were required by law. At trial, the train company (represented by Hoffman) attempted to introduce a transcript of statement the train conductor had with the Mass Public Utilities Commission (a normal part of any train accident investigation).Palmer objected on the grounds that the out of court statement was hearsay. Hoffman argued that the statement was an exception to hearsay because it was an official business record and made in the regular course of business.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the statement made by the conductor of the train was made in the regular course of business.

Ruling:
The US Supreme Court found that the phrase” in the regular course of business” referred to timetables, accounting and other normal business activities. The train conductor’s statement was not a record made for the systematic conduct of a business as a business. While an accident report may affect the business, it is not typical of entries made systematically or as a matter of routine to record events, occurrences or transactions. Basically, the fact that a company records its employee’s version of their accidents does not put those statements in the class of records made “in the regular course of business”. The conductor’s statement was not made for business purposes, it was made to prove the truth of the conductor’s version of events and assist the company in avoiding tort liability. The primary usage of such statement is in litigating, not in railroading.