Siebken v. Voderberg, 2015 MT 296

Background

Siebken appeals a jury verdict and judgment entered in favor of Voderberg in Lewis and Clark County.
The dispute centers on whether Siebken's suit is timely under the statute of limitations for negligence arising from an December 11, 2004 incident at the Federal Reserve Bank.
Siebken I (2012 MT 291) reversed a grant of summary judgment on the limitations issue; on remand the trial focused on when the three-year statute began to run.
Medical history includes pain beginning in late 2004, MRI treatment in 2005 showing cervical compression, and neck surgery in October 2005; a May 2006 follow-up referenced a causal link discussed with counsel.
The September 8, 2005 letter from Dr. Speth to Dr. Sorini stated that the January/February incident exacerbated Siebken’s neck pain, which was introduced at trial via deposition.
The jury ultimately found Siebken’s claims barred by the statute of limitations; judgment was entered in favor of Voderberg on October 30, 2014.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Speth letter—authenticity/hearsay	Waiver of objections at deposition; letter authentic; not hearsay for purpose offered.	Letter properly admitted; foundational/authenticity objections resolved or waived; hearsay exception applicable.	No error; letter properly admitted.
Jury instruction on discovery of injury	Instruction misstates law; conflates knowledge with suspicion; prejudices Siebken.	Instructions accurately reflect discovery standard; objection not preserved for review.	Objection waived; instruction stands; no new trial.
Sufficiency of the evidence to support verdict	Confusing instructions undermined finding that plaintiff knew the cause in time.	Trial evidence adequate; court should not disturb jury’s finding.	verdict supported by substantial evidence; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Olson v. Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contrs., Inc., 347 Mont. 1, 196 P.3d 1265 (2008 MT 378) (waiver for deposition objections when could have been corrected during deposition)
In re Bower, 355 Mont. 108, 68 P.3d 784 (2010 MT 19) (preservation of objections to evidence on appeal)
Kinsey-Cartwright v. Brower, 300 Mont. 450, 5 P.3d 1026 (2000 MT 198) (broad objections insufficient; specificity required)
State v. Vukasin, 317 Mont. 204, 75 P.3d 1284 (2003 MT 230) (objection grounds must be specific; waiver principle)
State v. Stock, 361 Mont. 1, 256 P.3d 899 (2011 MT 131) (preservation of trial objections to assist review)
Nott v. Booke, 633 P.2d 678 (1981 MT) (need for timely and specific objections to preserve appeal)
Reno v. Erickstein, 679 P.2d 1204 (1984 MT) (preservation and specificity of grounds for objections)
Wilhelm v. Great Falls, 732 P.2d 1315 (1987 MT) (general objections insufficient to preserve error)
Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc., 310 P.3d 1080 (2013 MT 158) (co-worker rumors not hearsay if offered for effect on listeners)
Sullivan v. Continental Construction of Montana, LLC, 299 P.3d 832 (2013 MT 106) (manager interviews not hearsay when offered to explain decision to terminate)
Vincelette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 968 P.2d 275 (1998 MT 259) (specific statement of intoxication improperly used to prove intoxication as fact)
Mobley v. Hall, 657 P.2d 604 (1983 MT) (distinction between knowledge and mere suspicion for discovery rule)
Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co., 358 P.3d 131 (2015 MT 255) (mere suspicion may not constitute discovery)
Siebken I, 2012 MT 291, 367 Mont. 344, 291 P.3d 572 (2012 MT 291) (reversed summary judgment on statute-of-limitations issue; remand for trial)