Boude v. Union Pacific Railroad
2012 MT 98
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Boude filed a FELA claim against Union Pacific for a July 29, 2006 injury.
- The incident occurred during a pusher/helper maneuver on a grain train where Boude and another engineer assisted a stalled train.
- Boude was terminated on December 6, 2006 for delaying reporting the incident and allegedly lying to management.
- Boude appealed the termination to the Public Law Board (PLB), which affirmed the termination on December 31, 2006.
- The district court allowed evidence of Boude's termination and the PLB decision at trial; Boude sought in limine to exclude it; the jury found Union Pacific not negligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Boude’s termination and PLB decision | Boude argues termination evidence is irrelevant and hearsay | Union Pacific argues PLB is a public record or relevant to credibility | Admissibility reversed; PLB report excluded; termination evidence not admissible to prove negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sleigh v. Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centres, Inc., 161 Or.App. 262, 984 P.2d 891 (Or.App. 1999) (admissibility limits for public-record-like findings; trustworthiness concerns)
- Stevenson v. Felco Ind., 216 P.3d 763 (Mont. 2009 MT 299) (Rule 803(8)(iv) excludes agency findings from HRB; prejudicial error)
- Crockett v. City of Billings, 234 Mont. 87, 761 P.2d 813 (Mont. 1988) (agency findings may be admissible in discrimination cases under certain conditions)
- Kulavic v. Chicago & Ill. Ry. Co., 1 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1993) (PLB procedures lack constitutional guarantees; neutrality concerns)
- Pacificorp v. Dep’t. of Revenue, 254 Mont. 387, 838 P.2d 914 (Mont. 1992) (reversal when admissible evidence prejudice outweighs probative value)
- Wright v. Ark. & Mo. R.R. Co., 574 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2009) (admission of termination evidence may be admissible to rebut injury-only narrative)