Top Law Schools

Settlement offers are not admissible to prove liability, I understand that. But what about "mixed settlement statements"? I recently came across this sample essay question in Jeff Adachi's Bar Breaker book...in relevant part:

"Paul testified that after his suit was brought, an officer of Helico not only offered to settle the action, but also admitted during settlement negotiations that the company agreed with Paul that the helicopter was defectively designed."

1) Did the court properly admit the testimony of Paul?

I answered that the specific settlement offer was barred because of extrinsic policy reasons. But I also wrote that any statement of liability was not barred because it is not part of the settlement offer. And that the court could admit that limited portion as hearsay (admission of party opponent, statement against interest).

But the sample answer says the entire issue of the settlement offer cannot be admitted. It makes no distinction. And Barbri's CMR does not mention any distinction either. So am I imagining a distinction that does not really exist? Am I confusing this with the physician-patient privilege? (where statements made for treatment purposes are excluded, but other statements can still be admitted)

The only wrinkle that I can think of for settlement offers is that there must be an indication that a party is going to make a claim and that the claim is in dispute as to validity/amount.

If you meet those two the exclusionary rule applies. If not, then you can offer the evidence.

Are you maybe confusing this with the offer to pay medical expenses rule? With that, a bare offer to pay medical bills is not admissible but any admission or statement besides the naked offer IS admissible.

THE_U wrote:The only wrinkle that I can think of for settlement offers is that there must be an indication that a party is going to make a claim and that the claim is in dispute as to validity/amount.

If you meet those two the exclusionary rule applies. If not, then you can offer the evidence.

Are you maybe confusing this with the offer to pay medical expenses rule? With that, a bare offer to pay medical bills is not admissible but any admission or statement besides the naked offer IS admissible.

Yeah I think I erroneously added some exceptions from the "payment of medical bills" issue with the "settlement offers" issue. Thanks.

So I just want to be clear, if a negligent defendant makes this statement to the injured plaintiff: "This car accident is my fault because I am drunk, will you accept $1000 to settle this issue?" That entire statement is barred because it is a settlement offer?

6TimeFailure wrote:So I just want to be clear, if a negligent defendant makes this statement to the injured plaintiff: "This car accident is my fault because I am drunk, will you accept $1000 to settle this issue?" That entire statement is barred because it is a settlement offer?

Yes...that is exactly right. To encourage settlements, they want to encourage parties to speak freely without fear of it being used against them.

So, anything said in conjunction with a settlement offer is off limits.

But, medical bills are different. If you say, "It's all my fault. I shouldn't have been smoking weed while I was eating a taco and driving. Can I please pay your medical bills?" All of the things you said...besides offering to pay the medical bills is admissible.

I guess you added the exception for the statements of fact made during settlement discussion in civil litigation with a government regulatory agency which are admissible in a later criminal case. e.g. corporate fraud case in which corporate officers make admissions of fact during civil settlement talk with SEC and are later prosecuted for crimes based on the same fact. This is a very narrow exception though.

Sue wrote:I guess you added the exception for the statements of fact made during settlement discussion in civil litigation with a government regulatory agency which are admissible in a later criminal case. e.g. corporate fraud case in which corporate officers make admissions of fact during civil settlement talk with SEC and are later prosecuted for crimes based on the same fact. This is a very narrow exception though.

That's true...almost forgot that. But I think it's rarely tested.

stranlaw wrote:

6TimeFailure wrote:So I just want to be clear, if a negligent defendant makes this statement to the injured plaintiff: "This car accident is my fault because I am drunk, will you accept $1000 to settle this issue?" That entire statement is barred because it is a settlement offer?

Yes...that is exactly right. To encourage settlements, they want to encourage parties to speak freely without fear of it being used against them.

So, anything said in conjunction with a settlement offer is off limits.

But, medical bills are different. If you say, "It's all my fault. I shouldn't have been smoking weed while I was eating a taco and driving. Can I please pay your medical bills?" All of the things you said...besides offering to pay the medical bills is admissible.

not to pick nits, but I think there also needs to be some indication of a claim.

A was drunk and ran B over. B is lying in a hospital bed and A goes to visit him. B says "You son of a bitch, you're drunk again. This time I'm going to sue your ass." A then says "Oh crap, you got me, I'm drunk again. Will you take $1000 to settle" - then A's statement is excluded.

But if A just stumbles his drunk ass in to B's room and yells "I'm SO drunk. That was totally my fault. Will you take $1000 to settle?" Then the whole statement can come in.

bandenjamin wrote:

stranlaw wrote:

6TimeFailure wrote:So I just want to be clear, if a negligent defendant makes this statement to the injured plaintiff: "This car accident is my fault because I am drunk, will you accept $1000 to settle this issue?" That entire statement is barred because it is a settlement offer?

Yes...that is exactly right. To encourage settlements, they want to encourage parties to speak freely without fear of it being used against them.

So, anything said in conjunction with a settlement offer is off limits.

But, medical bills are different. If you say, "It's all my fault. I shouldn't have been smoking weed while I was eating a taco and driving. Can I please pay your medical bills?" All of the things you said...besides offering to pay the medical bills is admissible.

not to pick nits, but I think there also needs to be some indication of a claim.

A was drunk and ran B over. B is lying in a hospital bed and A goes to visit him. B says "You son of a bitch, you're drunk again. This time I'm going to sue your ass." A then says "Oh crap, you got me, I'm drunk again. Will you take $1000 to settle" - then A's statement is excluded.

But if A just stumbles his drunk ass in to B's room and yells "I'm SO drunk. That was totally my fault. Will you take $1000 to settle?" Then the whole statement can come in.

Right. Applies only if there is already a claim that is disputed as to the validity of the claim or amount of damages.

WHat about a question like this:

If you had your money stolen from your pocket, and you were going to file a report, and I said "hey I took it, here, I'll pay you back the money, don't file the case?" I think a question like that came up and they said it wasn't a settlement offer? Isn't it technically a settlement offer because you are trying to avoid the case and paying the money back instead?

swtlilsoni wrote:WHat about a question like this:

If you had your money stolen from your pocket, and you were going to file a report, and I said "hey I took it, here, I'll pay you back the money, don't file the case?" I think a question like that came up and they said it wasn't a settlement offer? Isn't it technically a settlement offer because you are trying to avoid the case and paying the money back instead?

There is no dispute as the the validity of the claim or the amount. ("hey I took it")

Thus, there is no settlement offer and it can be admitted.

THE_U wrote:

swtlilsoni wrote:WHat about a question like this:

If you had your money stolen from your pocket, and you were going to file a report, and I said "hey I took it, here, I'll pay you back the money, don't file the case?" I think a question like that came up and they said it wasn't a settlement offer? Isn't it technically a settlement offer because you are trying to avoid the case and paying the money back instead?

There is no dispute as the the validity of the claim or the amount. ("hey I took it")

Thus, there is no settlement offer and it can be admitted.

So would it be different if I said "I didn't take it, but here is the full amount just don't file the case?"

swtlilsoni wrote:

THE_U wrote:

swtlilsoni wrote:WHat about a question like this:

If you had your money stolen from your pocket, and you were going to file a report, and I said "hey I took it, here, I'll pay you back the money, don't file the case?" I think a question like that came up and they said it wasn't a settlement offer? Isn't it technically a settlement offer because you are trying to avoid the case and paying the money back instead?

There is no dispute as the the validity of the claim or the amount. ("hey I took it")

Thus, there is no settlement offer and it can be admitted.

So would it be different if I said "I didn't take it, but here is the full amount just don't file the case?"

I am pretty sure.

Honestly, I don't think settlement offers really come up in the context of criminal cases (there is no money/damages at stake), so I feel like your hypo is a little confusing to think about.

THE_U wrote:

swtlilsoni wrote:

THE_U wrote:

swtlilsoni wrote:WHat about a question like this:

If you had your money stolen from your pocket, and you were going to file a report, and I said "hey I took it, here, I'll pay you back the money, don't file the case?" I think a question like that came up and they said it wasn't a settlement offer? Isn't it technically a settlement offer because you are trying to avoid the case and paying the money back instead?

There is no dispute as the the validity of the claim or the amount. ("hey I took it")

Thus, there is no settlement offer and it can be admitted.

So would it be different if I said "I didn't take it, but here is the full amount just don't file the case?"

I am pretty sure.

Honestly, I don't think settlement offers really come up in the context of criminal cases (there is no money/damages at stake), so I feel like your hypo is a little confusing to think about.

Oh sorry I was talking about civil cases