## Facts

- John S. Johnson was killed when his motorcycle collided with the defendants’ truck at a street intersection.
- In the wrongful death action, the parties sharply disputed how the collision occurred.
- A police officer who did not witness the accident prepared a written accident report at the station house based largely on statements obtained after he arrived.
- Defendants offered the report into evidence under § 374-a of the New York Civil Practice Act (business records statute).
- The trial court excluded the report.

## Issues

1. Whether a police accident report prepared by a non-witness officer, relying on bystanders’ statements, is admissible under § 374-a as a business record despite the officer’s lack of personal knowledge.
2. Whether § 374-a permits admission of entries that incorporate voluntary hearsay from third parties not under a business or legal duty to report.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, upholding exclusion of the accident report.
- The court held the report did not qualify under § 374-a because it was based on hearsay from third persons not under a duty to provide the information.
- The court rejected an interpretation of § 374-a that would admit records containing voluntary, duty-free third-party statements offered for their truth.

## Legal Principles

- A record is admissible under the business-records statute only if made in the regular course of business as part of the maker’s duty, and on information supplied by persons who were under a duty to impart that information.
- The statute does not authorize admission of entries resting on voluntary hearsay statements from outsiders who are not engaged in the relevant business and are not under any duty to report.
- Lack of personal knowledge by the entrant may affect weight, but it does not cure hearsay where the underlying informant had no duty to report and the record’s content depends on that informant’s truth.

## Conclusion

Because the officer did not witness the accident and the report was compiled from bystanders’ voluntary statements without any duty to report, the report lacked the reliability required for the business-records exception and was properly excluded.


Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517 (N.Y. 1930)