Opinion ID: 225479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bureau of Mines Report as Competent Evidence.

Text: 21 The plaintiff offered in evidence a report of the Cleveland disaster by the Bureau of Mines of the United States Department of the Interior. The report, signed by five Bureau experts who made their own investigation, concluded that the tank disintegrated rather than exploded and that the fractures were characteristic of failure due to low-temperature embrittlement. Both conclusions supported important elements of the plaintiff's case. The offer of the report was based upon the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, as adopted by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 28 P.S. §§ 91a-91d, and upon the similar federal statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732. 4 If the report was admissible under either statute, its exclusion was error. Fed.R.Civ. P. 43(a). 22 The Bureau of Mines is charged by Congress with the duty of investigating the preparation, treatment, and utilization of mineral substances with a view to improving health conditions, and increasing safety, efficiency, economic development, and conserving natural resources    in the    mineral industries    30 U.S.C.A. § 3. Moreover, the statute provides that the Bureau shall prepare and publish    reports of inquiries and investigations, with appropriate recommendations of the bureau, concerning the nature, causes, and prevention of accidents, and the improvement of conditions, methods, and equipment, with special reference to health, safety, and prevention of waste in the    mineral industries.    30 U.S.C.A. § 5. 23 The report which the plaintiff offered had been prepared in obedience to the above statutory provisions. The making of such reports is, by command of Congress, part of the business of the Bureau of Mines. 5 The report was a record of an occurrence or event and it was required by act of Congress. The document therefore comes squarely within the language of the federal statute and we think that the District Court erred in excluding it. 24 The report is no less admissible because it contains conclusions of experts which are based upon hearsay evidence as well as upon observation. These circumstances, by virtue of express statutory provision, go to weight rather than to admissibility. 6 Moreover, this Court has several times held that hospital records are admissible under the statute, and certainly medical diagnosis is no less a matter of opinion based upon observation and perhaps hearsay than this report of the Bureau's investigation. Bartkoski v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 3 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 1007; Norwood v. Great American Indemnity Co., 3 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 797; Pollack v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 123. 25