Opinion ID: 890163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Boude's termination and the Public Law Board decision affirming his termination?

Text: ¶ 11 Boude argues that evidence of his termination was irrelevant to whether the Railroad negligently provided an unsafe work environment for its employees. Additionally, Boude asserts that the written decision of the PLB was inadmissible hearsay, unduly prejudicial to him, untrustworthy, and confusing for the jury. Union Pacific disagrees with these assertions of error. ¶ 12 Montana Rule of Evidence 801 (Rule 801) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. A declarant is a person who makes a statement. In the context of this case, the PLB is the declarant and the statement is the written PLB report affirming Boude's termination on the grounds of dishonesty and delay. As the PLB ruling was admitted in order to affirm Boude's termination for dishonesty and delay, it was clearly presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. As such, we conclude the PLB decision was hearsay and inadmissible unless one of the exceptions in Rule 803 applied. ¶ 13 Union Pacific maintains that Rule 803(8) provides an exception to the hearsay rule allowing admission of the PLB report. This Rule states: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: