In action alleging that defendants-truck driver and his company were negligent when plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with defendants’ truck, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting oral and written statements from police officer that plaintiff’s husband (who had also filed consortium claim in instant action) told officer that plaintiff had told husband that accident was her fault. Said statements did not violate hearsay rule since plaintiff’s and her husband’s statements qualified as party admissions, and officer’s written statement about husband’s statement to him appeared in crash report, which qualified as public record exception to hearsay rule. Fact that husband was merely repeating plaintiff’s statement did not require different result. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in admitting oral and written statements from officer regarding defendant’s statement to him concerning plaintiff’s admission to defendant that accident was her fault, since defendant’s statement did not qualify as party admission exception to hearsay rule where defendant sought to admit his own out-of-court statement. However, any admission of hearsay evidence was harmless where said evidence was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.