CA Public Policy Exclusions

Question 1

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 1

Both CA and Fed: evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct

Fed: Also makes a subsequent redesign inadmissible to prove a defect in a product or its design in a products liability action

CA Distinction: The subsequent remedial measures rule doesn’t apply in strict liability cases, rather it only applies in cases about negligence or culpable conduct

SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES ARE ADMISSIBLE FOR STRICT LIABILITY CASES IN CA

Question 2

Civil Settlements and Settlement Negotiations

Answer 2

Both CA and Fed: Evidence of settlements, offers to settle, and statements made during settlement negotiations is inadmissible to prove liability or fault.

CA: statements made in connection with mediations are subject to stricter confidentiality. With limited exceptions, statements made and writings prepared in connection with a mediation or mediation consultation are inadmissible in civil cases. This includes communications and documents made outside the mediation as long as they were made for the purpose of the mediation.

CA: MEDIATIONS face STRICTER CONFIDENTIALITY, inadmissible in CIVIL cases

Question 3

Offers to Pay Medical Expenses

Answer 3

Both Fed and CA: evidence of payments or offers to pay medical or similar expenses is inadmissible when offered to prove liability for the injuries in question.

Fed: Admissions of fact accompanying such payments and offers don’t fall within this public policy exclusion, making them admissible.

CA: here, admissions of fact made in conjunction with payments or offers to pay medical expenses are inadmissible. This is a broader rule of exclusion. Not only are the offers and promises and payments themselves excluded, but so too are admissions of liability made in connections with the promises to pay or payment of medical expenses.

Question 4

Plea Discussions

Answer 4

Both Fed and CA: An offer to plead guilty, or a withdrawn guilty plea, or a plea of nolo contendere, and statements of fact made during plea discussions are inadmissible.

CA: May have a Prop 8 Truth in Evidence issue. In a criminal case, the CA constitution says all relevant evidence is admissible. Mention on essay that even if prop 8 applies to such evidence, the court may still exclude it for unfair prejudice.

Question 5

Expressions of Sympathy in Civil Cases

Answer 5

In CA, expressions of sympathy relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an accident victim are inadmissible in civil cases.

However, statements of fault made in connection with such an expression are not excluded.

There is no comparable fed rule.

Question 6

Evidence of Immigration Status in Certain Civil Cases

Answer 6

In CA, evidence of someone’s immigration status is NOT admissible in personal injury or wrongful death actions.

Question 7

Hospital Quality Records in Civil Cases

Answer 7

In CA, records of hospital morbidity or mortality studies are inadmissible in civil cases.

Question 7

Victim’s or Witness’s Act of Prostitution

Answer 7

In CA, when a person was a victim of a certain crime or witnessed a crime, evidence that this person had engaged in prostitution at or around the same time is inadmissible against them in a separate criminal prosecution for prostitution. The qualifying crimes are:
- any serious felony
- assault
- domestic violence
- extortion
- human trafficking
- sexual battery
- stalking

“You’re also a hooker lol” is not allowed