--- title: "Palmer v. Hoffman" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/palmer-v-hoffman --- # Palmer v. Hoffman Palmer v. Hoffman is the foundational case limiting the business records exception by establishing that documents prepared primarily in anticipation of litigation, rather than in the regular course of business, are not admissible as business records. The decision introduced the critical distinction between records made for business purposes and those made for litigation purposes. ## Citation 318 U.S. 109 (1943) ## Year 1943 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts A train operated by the New Haven Railroad struck Palmer's car at a grade crossing, and Palmer died from injuries sustained in the collision. In the resulting wrongful death suit, the railroad sought to introduce a report of the accident prepared by the locomotive engineer. The report was made pursuant to the railroad's standard practice of having employees involved in accidents prepare reports, but it was also prepared with an eye toward potential litigation and was given to the railroad's lawyer. ## Procedural History The trial court admitted the engineer's accident report as a business record. The Second Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. ## Issue Whether an accident report prepared by a railroad employee, made as a regular practice of the business but in anticipation of litigation, qualifies as a business record admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. ## Holding The Court held that the accident report was not admissible as a business record. A document prepared primarily in anticipation of litigation is not made 'in the regular course of business' within the meaning of the business records exception, even though the business regularly prepares such reports. The phrase 'regular course of business' must be read to exclude documents whose primary motivation is preparation for litigation. ## Reasoning Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, reasoned that the business records exception is grounded in the assumption that records made in the regular course of business are reliable because the business depends on their accuracy for its day-to-day operations. Accident reports prepared for litigation lack this indicia of reliability because they are made with a self-serving purpose in mind. The engineer's statement was 'dripping with motivations to misrepresent,' as it was prepared for the railroad's defense. The regularity of the practice of preparing such reports does not cure this defect. The Court distinguished between records that a business makes for its own use and those made to serve as evidence. ## Impact Palmer v. Hoffman established an enduring limitation on the business records exception that is now codified in the 'trustworthiness' clause of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), which allows exclusion when 'the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.' The case is regularly cited to exclude accident reports, incident reports, and other documents prepared primarily for litigation purposes. Its influence extends to all kinds of records where the preparer has a litigation motive. ## Key Quotes - The mere fact that a company makes a practice of recording accidents does not bring such records within the rule. It is not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business. - Any business by installing a routine for systematic making of records can qualify those records for admission in evidence. If the result were to obtain, the business records exception to the hearsay rule would swallow the hearsay rule. ## Related Cases - johnson-v-lutz - beech-aircraft-v-rainey - mutual-life-insurance-v-hillmon - bourjaily-v-united-states ## Exam Relevance Palmer v. Hoffman is a standard exam topic for business records questions. Professors present records that were prepared in the regular course of business but with a litigation motive and ask whether they qualify under Rule 803(6). Students should look for documents prepared by parties who have a stake in the outcome of potential litigation, such as accident reports, insurance investigations, and internal memoranda prepared after incidents. ## Study Tips - Focus on the motivation test: was the record prepared for the systematic conduct of the business, or in anticipation of litigation? - Know that FRE 803(6) codifies Palmer through the trustworthiness clause: records are excludable when the source or circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. - Distinguish Palmer from routine business records like sales receipts, inventory logs, and payroll records that are created for operational purposes. - Study Palmer alongside Johnson v. Lutz to understand multiple limitations on the business records exception. ## Doctrine Established Litigation Motivation Limitation on Business Records Exception --- Source: [Palmer v. Hoffman — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/palmer-v-hoffman)