Public Policy Exclusions

Question 1

LIABILITY INSURANCE
MED

Answer 1

• Evidence of liability insurance is NOT admissible to
  prove culpability (that a person acted negligently or
  wrongfully).
• However, ct may admit such evidence for another purpose, such as proving bias/prejudice of a
  witness, or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Question 2

SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES
HIGH

Answer 2

• Evidence of repairs/other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning/instruction.
• May be admissible for some other relevant purpose:
  (1) To prove ownership/control, if disputed;
  (2) To rebut a claim that a precaution was not feasible; or
  (3) To prove that OP has destroyed evidence
  (4) Impeachment

Question 3

CIVIL SETTLEMENTS AND SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS
MED

Answer 3

• Evidence of a compromise (settlement)/an offer to
  compromise civil claim is not admissible in any case to:
  (1) prove/disprove validity/amount of disputed claim, or
  (2) impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement/ contradiction.
• Conduct/statements made in course of negotiating a compromise—including direct admissions of liability—are also inadmissible for these purposes.
• Note: Evidence of settlement is admissible to impeach a
  witness on the ground of bias, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving obstruction in a criminal matter.

Question 4

Disputed Claim Required
MED

Answer 4

• The public policy exclusion for settlements & negotiations only kicks in if there was a claim/some indication a party was going to make a claim (although party need not have actually filed suit).
• Claim must have been in dispute as to either
  (1) liability or
  (2) amount

Question 5

Limited Exception to Rule—Civil Dispute with
Government Authority
MED

Answer 5

• Conduct/statements made during compromise negotiations regarding a civil dispute w/ a governmental regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority are not excluded when offered in a criminal case.
• Ex: D’s admissions of fact during settlement negotiations w/ securities enforcement agency would be admissible against D in a related criminal trial.

Question 6

PLEA DISCUSSIONS
MED

Answer 6

• Generally inadmissible in any criminal/civil case against D who made plea/participated in discussions:
  (1) Offers to plead guilty;
  (2) Withdrawn guilty pleas;
  (3) Actual pleas of nolo contendere (“no contest”); or
  (4) Statements of fact made during any of the above plea discussions
• Note: Actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) is generally
  admissible in related litigation as a statement of an opposing
  party (see the Hearsay module).

Question 7

PAYMENTS OF AND OFFERS TO PAY MEDICAL EXPENSES
MED

Answer 7

• Evidence that party has paid/offered to pay an injured person’s medical, hospital, or similar expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for the injury.
• Unlike w/ settlement negotiations, admissions of fact accompanying such payments & offers are admissible.

Question 8

Tip

Answer 8

• Generally, most important thing to remember about offers to pay medical expenses is that accompanying admissions of fact are admissible. Beware, however, of an offer to pay medical expenses that is also an offer to settle (ex.“I’ll pay your medical expenses if you drop the case”). In that situation, the more restrictive rule for settlement negotiations applies; meaning, any accompanying statements/conduct would be excluded along w/ offer.