Evidence AMP - Relevance And Policy Exclusions Flashcards
The plaintiff sued the defendant after slipping and falling on the newly waxed floor of the defendant’s store.
Under what circumstances is it most likely the defendant may offer evidence that no one has ever been injured before by slipping on the floor?
A To show the general absence of negligence on the defendant’s part.
B To show that the defendant was a reputable businessperson.
C To show that the defendant lacked knowledge of any danger.
D To show that the condition of the floor was not defective.
C
Where a defendant seeks to prove that he lacked knowledge of any danger, he may introduce evidence of his safety record and absence of prior complaints. Most courts are reluctant to admit evidence of the absence of similar accidents to generally show absence of negligence. The absence of prior accidents is usually not admissible to show that a defect did not exist at the time of the accident. Evidence of prior safety history and absence of complaints would not be admissible to show that defendant was a reputable businessperson. This is character evidence. Character evidence is generally not admissible in civil cases unless character is directly at issue in the case. QUESTION ID: E0049 Additional Learning
Which of the following is not a requirement of admissible evidence?
A It must be probative—i.e., contributes to proving or disproving a fact of consequence to the determination of the action.
B It must be material—i.e., relates to one of the substantive legal issues in the case.
C It must be credible—i.e., readily believable by the factfinder.
D It must be competent—i.e., does not violate an exclusionary rule.
C
Credibility is not a requirement of admissible evidence. Credibility may be attacked by the opposing party, but this is ultimately determined by the factfinder. Admissible evidence must be material. Material evidence relates to a fact of consequence to the determination of the action. The key questions are: what issue is the evidence offered to prove, and is that issue material to the substantive cause of action or defense? Evidence must be probative to be admissible. Evidence is probative if it contributes to proving or disproving a material issue. The key question is does the evidence tend to make the issue more probably true or untrue than without the evidence? Evidence is admissible only if competent. Evidence is competent if it does not violate an exclusionary rule. QUESTION ID: E0055 Additional Learning
Which of the following is not a factor in determining relevance?
A The evidence’s form or manner
B The evidence’s materiality
C The evidence’s probativeness
D The evidence’s proximity in time to the events in question
A
Relevance is not concerned with the form or manner of the evidence, but rather its substance and content. Relevant evidence is concerned with materiality (whether the disputed fact is at issue in the case) and probativeness (whether the evidence makes the existence of the fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence). When testimony or exhibit evidence that relates to a time, event, or person other than the time, event, or person directly involved in the controversy being litigated is offered, courts often consider the evidence’s proximity in time to the events in question when determining its relevance. QUESTION ID: E0044 Additional Learning
What type of evidence can come only from someone with actual knowledge of a disputed fact by means of his senses?
A Credible
B Direct
C Circumstantial
D Relevant
B
Evidence is direct when the very facts in dispute are communicated by one who has actual knowledge of those facts by means of his senses. For example, a witness testifies, “I saw Don hit Paul.” Circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence, is indirect and relies on inference. It is evidence of a subsidiary or collateral fact from which, alone or in conjunction with a cluster of other facts, the existence of the material issue can be inferred. For example, a witness testifies, “Don told me he hated Paul.” A person’s credibility does not determine whether evidence is direct or circumstantial. Evidence may be relevant without being direct (i.e., relevant evidence does not have to be communicated by one who has actual knowledge of a disputed fact by means of his senses). Circumstantial evidence may be relevant. QUESTION ID: E0048B Additional Learning
Under the Federal Rules, evidence of a defendant’s withdrawn guilty plea is __________ admissible in subsequent civil proceedings.
A Sometimes
B Never
C Always
B
Under the Federal Rules, withdrawn guilty pleas are never admissible against the criminal defendant who made the withdrawn plea. This is true in both criminal and civil proceedings. The rationale for this rule is that the evidentiary value of a withdrawn guilty plea (e.g., defendant’s admission of guilt) is deemed offset by the prejudicial effect of the evidence. QUESTION ID: E0042B Additional Learning
Evidence of a party’s liability insurance is inadmissible __________.
A where offered to show the insured’s ability to pay a substantial judgment
B where offered to impeach a witness
C where offered to prove ownership, when ownership is disputed
D when an admission of liability is so coupled with a reference to liability insurance that it cannot be severed without lessening the value of the admission
A
Where offered to show the insured’s ability to pay a substantial judgment, evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible. Where ownership or control is disputed, evidence that the defendant had liability insurance is admissible to prove ownership or control. Liability insurance is admissible when used for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness (e.g., for bias). When a person makes an admission of liability and makes a reference to insurance that cannot be severed without lessening the value of the admission, the reference to liability insurance is admissible. QUESTION ID: E0053 Additional Learning
A firm has an established business routine. What is this relevant to show?
A That a particular event occurred
B That the business is respectable, and therefore unlikely to have caused the injury in question
C That other persons in the same industry followed the same routine
A
Evidence that a business or firm had an established business routine is relevant as tending to show that a particular event occurred. Such evidence is not admissible for more general purposes, such as to show that the business is respectable and unlikely to be responsible for the injury in the case. Business routine should be distinguished from industrial custom. Business routine is specific to the business and event in question, and is admissible only to show that a particular event occurred. It is not admissible to show that other persons in the same industry followed the same routine. Custom of the industry is admissible to prove the actions of other persons in the same industry in an attempt to show adherence to or deviance from an industry-wide standard of care. In some cases, custom may also be introduced by either party as tending to establish a standard by which reasonable or ordinary care may be judged. QUESTION ID: E0041A Additional Learning
Which of the following statements concerning relevant evidence is false?
A Evidence that is admissible for one purpose is always excluded if there is a danger that the jury will consider it for another, incompetent purpose.
B Evidence may be admissible for one purpose, but not admissible for another.
C Evidence may be admissible against one party, but not admissible against another.
D Evidence that is admissible for one purpose but not another should be restricted to its proper scope and the jury should be instructed accordingly.
A
If evidence is admissible for one purpose (or against one party), it is not always excluded because of a danger that the jury will consider it for another incompetent purpose (or against another party). The court may restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. Evidence is often admissible against one party but not against another. Similarly, evidence may be admissible for one purpose but not for another. In each of these cases, the court (upon timely request) should restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. QUESTION ID: E0043 Additional Learning
What is the custom of a particular industry admissible to show?
A That a party’s actions adhered to or deviated from an industry-wide standard of care
B A particular company’s business routine
C That a party likely acted in accord with the custom
on the occasion in question
A
Custom of an industry is offered to prove the actions of other persons in the same industry in an attempt to show adherence to or deviance from an industry-wide standard of care. Industrial custom is not admissible to prove that a party likely acted in accordance with that industrial custom on the occasion in question. Rather, the routine of a specific business or firm—a separate type of evidence—may be introduced for this purpose. QUESTION ID: E0045A Additional Learning
Under the Federal Rules, is a criminal defendant’s withdrawn guilty plea ever admissible as evidence?
A No
B Yes, but only in subsequent civil cases
C Yes, but only in subsequent criminal cases
A
Under the Federal Rules, withdrawn guilty pleas are never admissible against the criminal defendant who made the withdrawn plea. This is true in both criminal cases and civil cases. The rationale for this rule is that the evidentiary value of a withdrawn guilty plea (e.g., defendant’s admission of guilt) is deemed offset by the prejudicial effect of the evidence. QUESTION ID: E0042A Additional Learning
The Federal Rule barring evidence of offers to compromise or settle applies to bar:
A The actual settlement offer, admissions of fact made during the negotiation, and any preexisting information
B The actual settlement offer and any admissions of fact made during the negotiation
C Only the actual settlement offer
B
Evidence of compromises or offers to compromise is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. The Federal Rules also exclude conduct or statements made in the course of negotiating a compromise, as well as the offer to compromise itself; therefore, both the actual settlement offer and any admissions of fact made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible. This position encourages settlements by allowing complete candor between the parties in negotiations. Rule 408 does not, however, protect preexisting information simply because it is presented to one’s opponent during compromise negotiations; e.g., one may not immunize otherwise admissible information under the guise of disclosing it during compromise negotiations. QUESTION ID: E0059B Additional Learning
Evidence of subsequent repairs to a product may be admissible to prove:
A Defect in product or design
B Ownership or control of the product
C That the original product should have had a warning
D Negligence of the manufacturer
B
Evidence of subsequent repairs performed by the defendant may be introduced to prove the defendant’s ownership or control of the product. Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is inadmissible to prove a defect in a product or its design. Such evidence is also inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or a need for a warning or instruction. QUESTION ID: E0058A Additional Learning
Evidence that one party to a lawsuit has liability insurance may be admissible:
A To prove ownership or the ability to pay a judgment
B To prove ability to pay a judgment or to impeach a witness
C To prove ownership or to impeach a witness
C
Where ownership or control is disputed, evidence that the defendant had liability insurance may be admissible to prove ownership or control. Liability insurance also may be admissible when used for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness (e.g., for bias). Where offered to show the insured’s ability to pay a judgment, evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible. QUESTION ID: E0053A Additional Learning
Which of the following statements is generally admissible as evidence?
A An admission of fact accompanying an offer to pay medical expenses
B An offer to pay medical expenses, used to show liability
C An admission of fact made during settlement negotiations
A
An admission of fact accompanying an offer to pay medical expenses is admissible. This differs from the rule regarding compromise negotiations, where such admissions are inadmissible if certain requirements are met. Evidence that a party offered to pay (or paid) the injured party’s medical expenses is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. When offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, an admission of fact made during settlement or compromise negotiations is not admissible. QUESTION ID: E0060B Additional Learning
Evidence of a party’s liability insurance may be admissible to prove __________.
A that the party acted negligently
B that the party is able to pay a substantial judgment
C that the party acted with intent
D that the party had ownership or control over the insured property or item, where such ownership or control is disputed
D
Where ownership or control over a property or item is in dispute, evidence that a party had liability insurance on the property or item may be admissible. A party’s liability insurance is not admissible to prove that a party acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Nor is liability insurance admissible to show that the party is able to pay a substantial judgment. Having liability insurance is not relevant to show intent to act. QUESTION ID: E0046 Additional Learning
Which of the following is a permissible purpose for introducing evidence of subsequent repair following an injury?
A To prove that the party who made the repair was negligent.
B To rebut a claim that the repair was not feasible.
C To prove the need for a warning or instruction.
D To prove a defect in a product or its design.
B
Subsequent remedial measures are admissible for certain purposes, such as to rebut a claim that the repair or precautionary measure was not feasible. Because the public policy behind the federal rule is to encourage people to make repairs, subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove: (i) negligence or other culpable conduct, (ii) a defect in a product or its design, or (iii) the need for a warning or instruction. QUESTION ID: E0054 Additional Learning
