-.



# THE ATR-ORNEY GENERAL

OFTEXAS

Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr. Director, Department of Public Safety canpMabry Austin, Texas Attention! J. B. Draper Dear Sirs Opinion No. O-6061 Re: Privileged characterof accident reportsmade to Department of Public Safety under Sets. 39, 40, 41 and 42, Art. 6687b,V.A.C.S. Plaintiff and defendant in an a&ion for damageswere involved in a traffic aoaident between an automobile and a truck on a public highway. A State Highway Patrohnan investigatedthe occurrenoe and made his report to the Deprtment.

Attorneys for the defendant have propomded mitt.% interrogatories to one of your employees,who, presumably, is in charge of the records of such reports. These questions seekc

1. The employee'sname and addressi 2. A statement of the records, under her supervisionand control; 3. To ascertainwhether a report coveringthe litigated accident was filed; and 4. A correctcopy of suchaccident report. Youwish to be advisedwhat questions should be answered. ?% quote from m opinion of our Supreme Court, decided on May 10, 194, in Ezmvn& Root, Inc.,VS. Haddad, discussing the questionsyou have raised: "The statutesunder which the Patrolman acted in reporting the accident are Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Article 6687b,Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. . . . "The Court of CivilAppeals held that the reportwas a privileged oommunioation, for which reason the trial court erred in admitting same, or any part thereof, in evidence.
. . .We here quote same in full as the opinion of the Court on the constructionof the statutesabove quotedwith respect to the question of whether or not the Roensch reportwas a privileged communication. It is as follows:Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (o-6061)

elm approw of the judgment of the Court of CivilAppeala in reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause,because the trial court erred in admittingthe entire reportmade by patrolman Roensoh to the Department of Atblio Safety. 175 S.W. Znd., 269. However, that report is not a privileged communicationunder Sec. 42, of Art. 6687b,Vernon'sAnno. Civ. Stat. This is made clear by a considerationof Seas. 39"and 40 of the same article. Sec. 39 requires reports of accidents of "everyperson involved," that is, by every party to the accident, and provides that such reports "shallbe deemed privileged connnunications."Roensch's reportwas called for by Sec. 43 as the findings of an officer investigatingthe accident, and it says nothing about any such report being privileged. Clearly,then, the purpose of Sec. 42 is to qualify the 'blanket privilege extending to reportsmade by "persons invclveda~bySec. 39, in two partiaulars,namely (1) to permit the Department of Public Safety to disclose the identity of any person involved in an accident,when such is not know or when such person denies his presence at the accident; and '2) to permit the Department of Public Safety to certify that such reportwas made, to prove that any person claimingto havemade the report has or has not made it. "~Obvicusly,Roensch's report, as such, is a hearsay statementand should be excluded at another trial, if objected to on that ground, except such partsthereof only as may tend to impeach eny direct evidence givenby Roensoh.
. . .*"

It is cur opinion the court's decision in that case settles the question. The parties to a pending action certainlywould be entitled to have a copy of the accident report. How else would theyknow whether the witnesses' evidencemight be subject to impeachment, if in fact it should be. This departmenthas ruled to the seme ePfec z in OpinionsNo. o-2044, and o-4402, copies of which are attached hereto.

It is cur advice that all the questionspropounded shouldbe answered and that a copy of the accident report shouldbe furnikhed. Very truly yours APPROVED Jm 6, 1944 /s/Gee. P. Ble,ckburn (Acting) ATTORREYGENEW OF TEXAS Approved Opinion Committee By BWB Chairman A’ITO9XTY GIBERAL OF TEXAS
& /s/ Elbert Hooper

Elbert Hcoper Assistant

EH;db:egw