Mayor, etc., of New York v. Second Ave. R.R. Co., 102 N.Y. 572 (1886)
A business record is admissible as evidence of a fact if the record was created in the ordinary course of business, based on reports of employees who had a duty to report accurately, and the person who made the entry testifies that they correctly entered the information.
Summary
The City of New York sued the Second Avenue Railroad Company to recover costs for street repairs the city performed after the Railroad failed to do so, as required by a covenant. The city introduced a time-book and material account to prove the expenses. The Court of Appeals held that the time-book was admissible under a business records exception to the hearsay rule because it was based on daily reports from foremen with a duty to accurately report hours worked, which were then entered into the time book by someone who testified to entering the data correctly. This case clarifies the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
Facts
The Second Avenue Railroad Company had a covenant to pave and repair streets “in and about the rails.” The City of New York notified the Railroad that repairs were needed, but the Railroad failed to make them. The City then made the repairs itself and sought to recover the costs from the Railroad. To prove the amount of labor and materials used, the City introduced a time-book and a written account of materials used. The time-book was kept by a foreman, Wilt, who recorded the names and times of the workers based on reports from gang foremen. Wilt visited the site twice a day to verify the reports. The gang foremen did not see Wilt’s entries but testified they accurately reported the information.
Procedural History
The trial court directed a verdict for the City, including the sum expended on labor and materials. The Railroad appealed, arguing that the City didn’t prove the “reasonable cost” of repairs and that the time-book and material account were inadmissible hearsay. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the City, holding the evidence was properly admitted.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the measure of damages for breach of a covenant to repair is the reasonable cost of repairs, and if so, was there sufficient evidence to support the directed verdict?
2. Whether a time-book and material account, based on reports from others, are admissible as evidence of the labor and materials used in repairs.
Holding
1. Yes, because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the sum actually expended by the covenantee in making repairs is prima facie evidence of the reasonable cost of the work.
2. Yes, because a time-book is admissible if it’s based on daily reports of foremen who had charge of the men and a duty to report accurately, and the person who made the entries testifies that they correctly entered them.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of the work, the sum actually expended by the city is prima facie evidence of that cost, absent any evidence of fraud, recklessness, or extravagance. Regarding the admissibility of the time-book, the Court recognized that the foreman who kept the book did not have personal knowledge of all the hours worked, but relied on reports from gang foremen. However, the Court created an exception to the hearsay rule, reasoning, “We are of opinion that the rule as to the admissibility of memoranda may properly be extended so as to embrace the case before us. The case is of an account kept in the ordinary course of business, of laborers employed in the prosecution of work, based upon daily reports of foremen who had charge of the men, and who, in accordance with their duty, reported the time to another subordinate of the same common master, but of a higher grade, who, in time, also in accordance with his duty, entered the time as reported. We think entries so made, with the evidence of the foremen that they made true reports, and of the person who made the entries that he correctly entered them, are admissible.” The Court emphasized the importance of the record being made in the ordinary course of business, with a duty to report accurately. The court found that this practice was necessary for conducting business, and safeguards against inaccuracy were sufficient to justify admission of this type of evidence.