Other forbidden inferences

Question 1

Subsequent remedial measures

Answer 1

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the suqsequent measures is not admissible to prove

negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, need for warning

but the court may admit the subsequent conduet for another purpose, such as impeachment, or - if disputed - proving ownership, control, or the feasability of precautionary measures

policies are to encourage manufactureres to make improvements for greater safety and it encourages peopel to take steps in furtherance of added safety

policy does not apply to remedial measures taken by an individual or entity not a party to the lawsuit

note the effectiveness of a limiting instruction to jury to not conisider the measures

Question 2

Settlement efforts

Answer 2

Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any paty to prove or disporove the validity/liability or amount of a disputed claim [ the current lawsuit] or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction

previously trying to make a compromise/settle the issue in the current lawsuit

conduct or a statement made during compromise/settlement negotiations about the claim in the current lawsuit

The court may admit the evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’ bias, negating a contetion of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal invstigaiton or prosecution

For example, introducing evidence from compromise negotiations not to prove the disputed claim (discrimination) but to prove that the university committed an enitrely sepearte wrong by conditiong her benefits on a waiver of her rights

if introducing evidence of compromise negotiations by defendant would make plaintiff’s argument fail, it follows that defendant entered evidence for purpose of proving the invalidity of plaitniff’s claim. this reading would swallow the rule.

rule wants to encourage settlments

Question 3

Criminal settlements

Answer 3

in a civil or criminal casse, evidence is not admissible against the defendant who made or participated in the plea

1. ) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn
2. ) a nolo contendere plea
3. ) a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas
4. ) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecution if the discussion did not result in a guilty plea or it resulted in a alter withdrawn guilty plea

Mezzanatto: a defendant can waive out of 1-4 duirng plea negotiations and have them admissible against him as part of the plea deal; likley to swallow the rule because defendants have no baragniing power

EXCEPTIOM

court may admit a statemnt in 3 or 4 in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or discussions has been introduced and the statements ought to in fairness be considdred together

in a criminal proceeding for a false statemetn or perjury if the defendant made the statement under oath with counsel present

Question 4

liability insurance

Answer 4

evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving witness bias, proving agency, ownership, or control

the fact that defefdant’s insurere employed the witness was clearly admissible to show bias of that witness

Question 5

medical payments

Answer 5

evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical expenses resulting from injury is not admissible to prove liablity for the injury