## Facts

- A collision occurred on I-70 in Indianapolis between Betty Jordan’s motorcycle and a semi tractor-trailer driven by Kelly D. Binns and owned by U.S. Xpress, Inc.
- Binns heard a noise, looked in his mirror, and saw a motorcycle sliding; he stopped and went back to assist.
- Binns claimed Betty Jordan repeatedly said at the scene: “Tell the trucker it’s not his fault. It’s my fault.”
- Betty Jordan later had no recollection of making such statements or interacting with Binns at the scene.
- Binns relayed Betty’s alleged statements to U.S. Xpress personnel, an insurance adjuster, and Indiana State Trooper Russell Litt.
- Trooper Litt documented, in an officer crash report, statements attributed to Binns and to Theodore Jordan (Betty’s husband) repeating that Betty said the crash was her fault and not the trucker’s.
- Betty Jordan suffered catastrophic injuries, ultimately losing both legs at the knees.
- The Jordans sued for negligence (Betty) and loss of consortium (Theodore) under Indiana law in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- A jury returned a defense verdict; the district court denied a motion for a new trial challenging several hearsay-related evidentiary rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony and documents containing multiple layers of hearsay concerning Betty Jordan’s alleged statement that the accident was her fault.
2. Whether the officer crash report was admissible as a public record despite including recorded summaries of witness statements.
3. Whether admission of an insurance adjuster’s report and related testimony was improper hearsay.
4. Whether any evidentiary error warranted a new trial or was harmless because the challenged evidence was cumulative.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment and the denial of a new trial.
- The court held that parts of the challenged evidence were admissible, including the officer crash report as a public record and Betty Jordan’s alleged statement as an opposing party’s statement when offered against her.
- The court agreed that portions of the insurance adjuster’s report and some testimony repeating Binns’s account were improperly admitted hearsay.
- The court concluded any error was harmless because the improperly admitted material was largely cumulative and did not substantially influence the verdict.
- The court found no reversible error in referencing the crash report during opening statement because the report was ultimately admissible.

## Legal Principles

- When evidence contains hearsay within hearsay, each layer must independently satisfy a hearsay exclusion or exception to be admitted.
- A party’s own statement, when offered against that party, is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), including self-inculpatory statements bearing on fault.
- Police crash reports may be admissible as public records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) absent a showing of untrustworthiness, including routine accident-investigation documentation.
- Litigation-oriented insurer/adjuster reports generally do not qualify as public records and may be inadmissible hearsay absent another applicable exception.
- Evidentiary errors do not require a new trial if they are harmless, including where improperly admitted hearsay is cumulative of properly admitted evidence and does not have a substantial effect on the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the defense verdict because key evidence of the plaintiff’s alleged admission of fault and the officer crash report were properly admitted, and any remaining hearsay errors—particularly involving the insurer’s adjuster report—were harmless in light of cumulative, admissible testimony supporting the same point.


Jordan v. Binns, 712 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2013)