Settlement negotiation exclusionary rule
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:11 pm
I have a question about settlement negotiation exclusionary rule. I understand that the rule only applies if there is a claim that is disputed (at the time of settlement discussion) either as to validity of the claim or the amount of damages.
My question is: 1) in Example 2), at what point is there a dispute? My first instinct was that there is no dispute because the man is willing to pay what the pedestrian is asking for. In comparing Example 1) and Example 2), aren’t they directly contradictory? I feel like if there is a dispute in Example 2), then there should be a dispute in Example 1) as well. 2) in Example 2, why do we only consider settlement negotiation issue? isn’t there also the issue of offer to pay medical expenses? when there are two issues present, is there one that prevails over another? another answer choice in Example 2) was “inadmissible as an admission made in connection with an offer to pay medical expenses.” Thank you in advance!
Example 1) After A’s and B’s cars collided, A sent a letter to B saying, “The accident was all your fault. I demand that you pay my damages in the amount of $100,000.” B called A on the phone and said, “you are right about the accident. It was all my fault and I owe you the full $100,000 you are asking for. But you know how ficke juries can be. If you don’t accept $50,000 now, you’ll have to sue me to get anything.” Should A be allowed to introduce B’s statements against B at a subsequent trial?
Correct answer: Yes, A’s claim (to pay in the amount of $100K) should be allowed because B has not disputed liability or damages at the time of discussion. But if B had said, “it was all my fault, but you didn’t suffer $100,000 in damages,” then we have a dispute over the amount of damages, and the statement is not allowed.
**Compare with:
Example 2) A man was driving his car when he suddenly hit a pedestrian as she was crossing the street. Following the accident, an ambulance was summoned and the pedestrian was taken to a nearby hospital. The man, who also drove to the hospital, approached the pedestrian in the emergency room while she was being treated for her injuries. When the pedestrian saw the man, she told him, “you went through that red light. You could have killed me.” She then asked the man for $5000 to cover her anticipated medical expenses. The man replied that he would have to think about it. Shortly thereafter, the man sent a letter to the pedestrian in which he wrote, “I realize I drove through the red light. Naturally, I would like to settle this without any litigation. I’m willing to pay all your medical expenses and give you $2000 if you don’t sue me.” The pedestrian did not accept the man’s offer and brought suit against him. At trial, the pedestrian’s attorney offers the first sentence of the letter into evidence, and the man objects. The trial judge should rule the evidence:
Correct answer: inadmissible as an admission made in connection with settlement negotiations.
My question is: 1) in Example 2), at what point is there a dispute? My first instinct was that there is no dispute because the man is willing to pay what the pedestrian is asking for. In comparing Example 1) and Example 2), aren’t they directly contradictory? I feel like if there is a dispute in Example 2), then there should be a dispute in Example 1) as well. 2) in Example 2, why do we only consider settlement negotiation issue? isn’t there also the issue of offer to pay medical expenses? when there are two issues present, is there one that prevails over another? another answer choice in Example 2) was “inadmissible as an admission made in connection with an offer to pay medical expenses.” Thank you in advance!
Example 1) After A’s and B’s cars collided, A sent a letter to B saying, “The accident was all your fault. I demand that you pay my damages in the amount of $100,000.” B called A on the phone and said, “you are right about the accident. It was all my fault and I owe you the full $100,000 you are asking for. But you know how ficke juries can be. If you don’t accept $50,000 now, you’ll have to sue me to get anything.” Should A be allowed to introduce B’s statements against B at a subsequent trial?
Correct answer: Yes, A’s claim (to pay in the amount of $100K) should be allowed because B has not disputed liability or damages at the time of discussion. But if B had said, “it was all my fault, but you didn’t suffer $100,000 in damages,” then we have a dispute over the amount of damages, and the statement is not allowed.
**Compare with:
Example 2) A man was driving his car when he suddenly hit a pedestrian as she was crossing the street. Following the accident, an ambulance was summoned and the pedestrian was taken to a nearby hospital. The man, who also drove to the hospital, approached the pedestrian in the emergency room while she was being treated for her injuries. When the pedestrian saw the man, she told him, “you went through that red light. You could have killed me.” She then asked the man for $5000 to cover her anticipated medical expenses. The man replied that he would have to think about it. Shortly thereafter, the man sent a letter to the pedestrian in which he wrote, “I realize I drove through the red light. Naturally, I would like to settle this without any litigation. I’m willing to pay all your medical expenses and give you $2000 if you don’t sue me.” The pedestrian did not accept the man’s offer and brought suit against him. At trial, the pedestrian’s attorney offers the first sentence of the letter into evidence, and the man objects. The trial judge should rule the evidence:
Correct answer: inadmissible as an admission made in connection with settlement negotiations.