## Facts

- Detroit police investigated a series of armed robberies involving car-dealer test drives; suspects used a Ford Thunderbird linked to a residence on Curtis Street.
- On March 20, 1981, Officers John Shuell and Richard Nixon (plain clothes, unmarked cars) conducted surveillance; Sergeant Michael Hall supervised in an unmarked car.
- Joseph Solomon’s son, Alvin, arrived at the Curtis Street home, picked up two men, and drove away; the officers followed and attempted arrests.
- During the confrontation, Joseph Solomon came outside his home with a gun, apparently believing his son needed help.
- Officer Shuell shot and killed Joseph Solomon.
- Witness accounts of the confrontation and shooting differed, making the circumstances of the fatal shot a central disputed issue at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether four police reports about the incident were admissible under MRE 803(6) (business records) or MRE 803(8) (public records), given questions about trustworthiness and investigative/litigation context.
2. Whether the jury was properly instructed on the rescue doctrine where the instruction (a) required the person rescued to be in actual imminent and serious peril and (b) used contributory-negligence terminology rather than comparative-fault terminology, and whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- Reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial.
- Held the four police reports were improperly admitted because the method and circumstances of preparation indicated a lack of trustworthiness under both MRE 803(6) and MRE 803(8).
- Held the rescue-doctrine instruction was erroneous because it required actual peril and framed the standard in contributory-negligence terms inconsistent with comparative fault.
- Concluded the instructional error was not harmless because it materially affected the jury’s assessment of Joseph Solomon’s conduct and the allocation of fault and damages.

## Legal Principles

- Records offered under MRE 803(6) or MRE 803(8) may be excluded when the source of information, or the method or circumstances of preparation, indicates lack of trustworthiness.
- Law-enforcement reports prepared by participants in a contested incident, and prepared during an investigation with awareness of likely civil, criminal, or disciplinary consequences, may lack the reliability required for admission under these hearsay exceptions.
- The rescue doctrine applies when a rescuer reasonably believes another person is in imminent and serious peril; it does not require proof that the person rescued was in actual peril.
- In a comparative-fault system, rescue-doctrine instructions must be stated in comparative-fault terms; a rescuer’s conduct is generally not treated as fault unless the rescue attempt is reckless or rash.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because untrustworthy police investigative reports were admitted under hearsay exceptions and the jury was misinstructed on the rescue doctrine in a way that could have distorted the comparative-fault assessment central to liability and damages.


Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104, 457 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. 1990)