## Facts

- A collision occurred on a four-lane Vermont highway between a southbound 1971 Mercedes driven by Robert W. Whelan and a vehicle entering the highway from a rest area carrying Larry W. Robbins and other passengers.
- Plaintiffs claimed Whelan was traveling at a high rate of speed that caused or contributed to the crash; Whelan claimed he was traveling about the posted limit and the other vehicle entered unexpectedly.
- A state trooper investigated and observed approximately 160 feet of skid marks attributed to Whelan’s car leading to the point of impact.
- Plaintiffs sought to introduce a U.S. Department of Transportation performance report containing braking and stopping-distance data for comparable Mercedes vehicles under specified test conditions.
- Plaintiffs intended to use the report together with the skid-mark evidence to support an inference that Whelan’s speed exceeded his account, though their proffer at trial did not clearly explain that linkage.
- The district court excluded the report over plaintiffs’ objection, citing lack of relevance and hearsay concerns.
- The jury returned a verdict for Whelan.

## Issues

1. Whether the DOT stopping-distance report was relevant to proving the Mercedes’s speed based on skid-mark evidence.
2. Whether the report was inadmissible hearsay or admissible under the public-records exception, Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
3. Whether exclusion of the report, if erroneous, was harmless or required a new trial because it affected a central disputed issue.

## Decision

- The First Circuit vacated the judgment for Whelan and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the DOT report was relevant because it had some tendency to assist the jury in inferring speed from the physical evidence of braking/skid marks.
- The court held the report was admissible under Rule 803(8) as a public record containing factual findings from an authorized government testing program.
- The court held the exclusion was not harmless because speed was the key contested issue and the excluded evidence could have materially affected the jury’s assessment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable; technical performance data may be relevant when it can be related to physical evidence such as skid marks.
- Differences between test conditions in a technical report and accident conditions generally affect weight rather than admissibility and may be addressed through cross-examination and counterproof.
- Government technical or investigative reports containing factual findings from authorized studies may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), absent a showing of untrustworthiness.
- Erroneous exclusion of evidence is reversible when there is a reasonable likelihood the ruling affected the verdict on a central disputed issue.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court improperly excluded a federal vehicle-performance report that was both relevant to the disputed issue of speed and admissible as a public record, and the exclusion likely influenced the verdict in a close negligence case.


Robbins v. Whelan, 653 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1981)