Hearsay is generally inadmissible. Minn. R. Evid. Defense counsel subsequently read into evidence Ramjeet's written statement describing his work on the van. Although the statement was prepared by an insurance investigator, Ramjeet reviewed the statement, corrected and initialed mistakes, and signed it, indicating that the statement was true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Ramjeet's statement, which was consistent with his trial testimony and helpful in evaluating his credibility as a witness, also was offered and received by the district court as an exhibit.
Appellants also argue that the statement is unreliable.
Because Ramjeet's written statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement, the district court did not abuse its discretion in receiving it as evidence at trial. See Minn. R. Civ. Construction of a rule of civil procedure is a question of law, subject to de novo review. And in any event, proof of a design defect does not provide a complete defense to appellants' allegation of negligence in the inspection, service, and maintenance of the van. Appellants also claim that the district court erred by allowing respondents to bring into the courtroom custom wheels and lug nuts like those that were on Robert Davids's van, as well as custom wheels and lug nuts of a subsequent, new design.