Public Policy Exclusions

Question 1

Liability Insurance Evidence

Answer 1

Evidence of a party’s insurance against liability (of lack therof) is not admissible to show whether a party acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Admissible to prove:
-Ownership or control
-As impeachment
-As part of an admission of liability

Question 2

Subsequent Remedial Measures Evidence

Answer 2

Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures taken after an injury is inadmissible to prove:
-Negligence
-Culpable conduct
-A defect in a product of its design
-A need for a warning or instruction

Admissible to prove:
-Ownership or control
-To rebut a claim that precautions were impossible
-To prove destruction of evidence

Question 3

Settlement Offers or Negotiation Evidence

Answer 3

Evidence of a settlement, settlement offer, or any conduct or statement made during the course of negotiating a compromise (including direct admissions of liability) is inadmissible to:
-Prove or disprove the VALIDITY or AMOUNT of a DISPUTED claim
-Impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction

Admissible for all other purposes
-Also admissible when conduct or statement regards a civil dispute with the government when offered in a CRIMINAL case

Question 4

Offers to Pay Medical Expenses Evidence

Answer 4

Inadmissible to prove liability

Admissible for all other purposes
-Admission of accompanying fact(s) are admissible (unlike settlement negotiations)

Question 5

Withdrawn Guilty Pleas and Offers to Plead Guilty Evidence

Answer 5

Inadmissible for all purposes

Exception: actual guilty plea is admissible for related litigation
-As statement of an opposing party

Question 6

General Rule of Relevance

Answer 6

Evidence is relevant when it is material and probative (low threshold):
-Material: proposition is of consequence in the case
-Probative: the evidence has any tendency to make the proposition more or less likely

Subject to 403 and public policy exclusions

Question 7

Rule 403

Answer 7

A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of:
-Danger of unfair prejudice
-Confusion of the issues
-Misleading the jury
-Undue delay
-Waste of Time
-Repetitive evidence

Unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground to exclude evidence