Public Policy Exclusions Flashcards
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
Otherwise-relevant evidence can be excluded for public policy reasons. This is because as a society we want to encourage certain types of behaviors.
Subsequent remedial measures
Evidence of safety measures, or repairs performed after an accident, are not admissible to prove culpable conduct. a. FRE only: In addition, in a products liability action, evidence of safety measures are inadmissible to show defective product design.
Subsequent remedial measures Exception
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to establish:
a. Ownership or control: Show ownership or control of an instrumentality; or
b. Precaution not feasible: To rebut a claim that the precaution was not feasible; or
c. Destruction of evidence: That the other party destroyed evidence.
Liability insurance
Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove culpable conduct (such as negligence or defendant’s ability to pay a judgment). The purpose of the policy exclusion is that evidence of insurance may have a tendency to suggest the defendant has deep pockets to pay for any injuries, or tends to be negligent and that is why he carries insurance.
Admissible for:
1. proof of agency;
2. proof of ownership or control
3. proof of bias or prejudice of a witness
Liability insurance Exception
Evidence of liability insurance is admissible to establish:
a. Ownership or control: Showing ownership or control of an instrumentality is allowed (e.g., the liability policy is held by the car owner); or
b. Impeachment; or
c. Admission: A statement of fault made in conjunction with a statement regarding the possession of liability insurance is admissible. For example, the statement “I have plenty of insurance” said after an injury-producing accident may be admitted as evidence that the declarant felt he was at fault for the injury.
Offers to pay medical expenses
Offers to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury are not admissible to prove liability for that injury. The reason for this rule is that we don’t want to discourage people from offering to pay medical expenses because of the fear it is the equivalent of an admission of guilt.
Offers to pay medical expenses FRE-only exception
Collateral admissions of fact made during an offer to pay medical expenses are admissible. (But, not under the CEC.)
Settlement offers
An offer to settle a claim and related statements are not admissible to prove the claim’s validity, liability, or amount. Disputed claim only: This rule only applies to a claim that is disputed as to validity or amount. It does not apply if a claim has not yet been made.
Offer to plead guilty
An offer to plead guilty to a crime, and all related statements made during plea negotiations, are not admissible to prove that a criminal defendant is guilty, or a consciousness of guilt. California exception: Such statements may come in under Prop. 8.
F. Expressions of sympathy— CEC only
Evidence of expressions of sympathy are not admissible in civil actions that are related to the death or suffering of an accident victim, but statements of fault made in connection with the sympathy are admissible.
