## Facts

- Richard Olesen (plaintiff) was injured when his car struck the rear of a wagon owned by Kenneth Henningsen and involved in defendants’ farming operation.
- Lloyd Simonson and Kenneth Henningsen (defendants) were sued for damages arising out of the collision.
- At the time of the accident, the wagon did not display a lighted tail lamp.
- The parties disputed whether the accident occurred at a time of day when Iowa law required a lighted tail lamp to be exhibited.
- After the accident, Olesen returned home and placed a telephone call to the sheriff to report the accident.
- The exact time of Olesen’s return home and his call to the sheriff had some value as evidence bearing on when the collision occurred.
- The defense offered a time-stamped telephone company record showing the time Olesen placed the call to the sheriff, arguing the record supported a time early enough that a tail lamp was not legally required.
- A telephone company employee testified that, under regular company procedure, the two operators who handled the transmission and reception of the call would have made the record at or near the time the call was placed.
- Telephone company employees responsible for company records identified and verified the record and testified it was kept as part of the company’s office records.
- Other evidence at trial also supported the time reflected on the telephone company record.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- On appeal, Olesen argued the telephone record was inadmissible hearsay because the operators who made the entry were unidentified and did not testify.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the telephone company’s time-stamped record of Olesen’s call as a business record to prove the time of the call, even though the operators who made the entry did not testify.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the telephone company record was properly admitted under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule.
- The court also concluded the admission of the record did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A record made in the regular course of business, as part of a routine practice, at or near the time of the event recorded, may be admitted under the business-records exception to hearsay.
- The foundation for a business record may be established by a qualified witness familiar with the business’s recordkeeping methods; the person who made the specific entry need not testify.
- A business record may be admitted even if the particular employee who created it is not identified, so long as the evidence shows the record was generated and kept as part of the business’s regular operations.
- When other evidence supports the same point, an evidentiary complaint is less likely to justify reversal because the complaining party must show prejudice from the ruling.

## Conclusion

Olesen v. Henningsen affirmed a defense verdict in a rear-end wagon collision case where the key dispute was whether the accident occurred at a time requiring a lighted tail lamp. The court held that a telephone company’s time-stamped record of Olesen’s call to the sheriff was admissible as a business record, despite the absence of testimony from the operators who made the entry, and the admission of the record did not require a new trial.


Olesen v. Henningsen, 77 N.W.2d 40 (1956)