Court Opinion

ID: 9454635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:53:11.133169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:12.902015
License: Public Domain

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
Although I am in accord with the conclusion that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of items one and four of evidence requires our reversal, I cannot agree with the majority’s treatment of the admissibility of Captain Nielsen’s letter to United Fruit and United Fruit’s accident report. The statute by which this issue is governed, 28 U.S.C. § 1732,1 requires that in order for a document to be admissible as a business record it must be made “in the regular course of business.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this term to mean that the report must be prepared “for the systematic conduct of the business as a business.” Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 113, 63 S.Ct. 477, 480, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943). Captain Nielsen’s letter and the Company’s accident report were obviously not prepared for this purpose, and are in fact the very type of evidence held inadmissible in Palmer because likely to have been prepared with a view toward future litigation and thus inherently untrustworthy. Moreover, these reports are clearly not of the character held admissible in United States v. New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc., 304 F.2d 792 (2d Cir.1962). In that case we held the accident report admissible precisely because the injured employee’s only claim against his employer (the government) was based on a statutorily fixed compensation payable to him regardless of fault, thus eliminating any probability that the report had been prepared with a view toward future litigation in an action based on negligence. Accordingly, I believe the trial court was entirely correct in excluding these items.

. The Preliminary Draft of Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts relied upon by the majority is exactly what it is described to be. It has not been adopted by the Supreme Court. The letter of transmittal preceding the Draft Rules solicits suggestions from the Bench and Bar by April 1, 1970, and emphasizes that the Draft has not yet been submitted to or considered by the Judicial Conference or the Supreme Court. It concludes by stating: “it should be understood that the Court is in no way committed to [the Draft] and has not given it any consideration.” Since the Proposed Draft does depart so radically from the current law, I do not believe it appropriate for us to rely upon it at this time.