Opinion ID: 1983383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of testimony concerning safety inspections.

Text: Defendants' motion in limine sought suppression of Loy's testimony. Loy, Iowa state bureau of labor safety officer, inspected the company plant twice shortly after plaintiff's injury and prepared investigative reports. Defendants posited their motion on § 88.12, The Code, 1971, which provided in part that [n]o statement contained in any such report shall be admissible in any action arising out of the accident therein reported. This motion was overruled. No objection on this ground was urged at trial. Loy did not testify concerning any statement contained in any such report. He testified without objection he made the inspections on June 7 and June 14, 1971, the shear machine had no guard, and in his opinion it was not a safe machine. The most which might be claimed for § 88.12, The Code, 1971, is its similarity to § 321.271 before the 1967 amendment (62 G.A. ch. 276, § 1) when it provided the automobile accident report of the law enforcement officer should not be admissible in any civil case. See Grocers Wholesale Coop., Inc. v. Nussberger Truck. Co., 192 N.W.2d 753, 755-756 (Iowa 1971). But even then the statutory exclusion did not extend to what the officer observed nor to statements not intended as a report or as information given for a report. Goodman v. Gonse, 247 Iowa 1091, 1104, 76 N.W.2d 873, 880-881 (1956); see Baysinger v. Haney, 261 Iowa 577, 584, 155 N.W.2d 496, 500 (1968). We hold the same rule is applicable here. Loy's testimony was admissible. We find no reversible error in this proposition relied on by defendants.