Specialized Relevance Rules Flashcards
407: Subsequent Remedial Measures
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
- Negligence
- Culpable conduct
- A defect in a product or its design; or
- A need for a warning or instruction
407: What evidence is admissible?
To show ownership or control
To show feasibility
To impeach
Or for any other non prohibited reason
407: Tuer Rule
If a party claims that the product or procedure could not have been implemented in a safer way. Evidence of an SRM by that party will likely be admissible for feasibility and/or impeachment.
408: Compromise Offers and Negotiations
a. Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
1. Furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
2. Conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
b. Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
408: Broken Down Rule
Evidence that a party offered to or did compromise a claim and all surrounding statements made during settlement negotiations are not admissible to show the amount of validity of a disputed claim or impeach by a prior inconsistent statement.
Prohibits admission of ALL statements made in the course of settlement negotiations, not just the offer to compromise.
408: Applies when
A P wants to show that a D offered to settle a claim as a means of proving liability and amount of damages.
A D wants to show that a p offered to settle a claim to show that the P’s claim is invalid.
A P wants to offer that a D settled with a similarly situated third party as a means to show the D’s liability or the proper amount of damages in the present case.
409: Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
Only excludes the offer and not the surrounding statements.
Offering to pay—low probative
- Impulses
- Any expression of fault or negligence is admissible
Specialized Relevance Rules
Evidence governed by the specialized relevance rules is inadmissible as a matter of public policy.
That is, even though the evidence may be relevant to the case disposition, it fails a FRE 403 test as a matter of law.
what does FRE 408 only protect?
only protects offers to compromise when a claim exists and liability or amount of damages is actually in dispute.
Evidence of conduct or statements made during the compromise negoatition is also inadmissible.
408 offer to settle claim:
Does there need to be an actual claim?
YES
rule only protects settlement evidence if the offer, settlement, or statement relates to a claim that is disputed either as to liability or to damages.
Statements made during the course of a negotitation for a business deal or a licensing agreement are not protected.
When may evidence of to compromise be admissible
1) to show bias or prejudice
2) Undue delay (P could say did not file sooner because was negotiating a settlement with D)
3) Limits on Impeachment: while statements in compromise may be used to show bias or prejudice cannot use to impeach statements in the negotiation.
What is a key difference between 408 (compromise) and 409(offer to pay medical bills)
408 allows all statements made during the compromise and negoations
409 Only bans the use of the offer or fact of payment itself, it does not ban other statements made in connection with the offer.
