Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/28

Click to flip

28 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Evidence is relevant if...
...it has any tendency to make a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
All relevant evidence is admissible, unless one of these two things
1. Some specific exclusionary rule applies, or
2. The court makes a discretionary determination that hte probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by a pragmatic consideration.
6 Pragmatic Considerations that may cause a court to exclude evidence
Danger of unfair prejudice
Confusion of the issues
Misleading the jury
Undue delay
Waste of time
Unduly cumulative
General rule on admissibility of plaintiff's accident history, plus exception
Plaintiff's accident history is inadmissible because it shows nothing more than the fact that the plaintiff is accident-prone. EXCEPTION: Plaintiff's prior accidents admissible if cause of plaintiff's injuries is in issue.
General rule on admissibility of similar accidents caused by same event or conditions
Generally inadmissible.
When can other accidents involving the defendant be admissible?
Other accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition may be admitted for three potential purposes IF they occurred under substantially similar circumstances, to:
1. Show existence of a dangerous condition;
2. Show causation of the accident; or
3. Show defendant had prior notice
What is the rule governing the admissibility of experiments and tests?
Substantial similarity
Prior similar conduct of a person may be admissible to raise an inference of _________________ on a later occasion.
INTENT
Selling price of other property of similar _____________, in same general __________________, and close in ___________________ to period at issue, is some evidence of value of property at issue.
TYPE, LOCATION, TIME
For what person is habit admissible? What about a business organization?
Habit of a person (or routine of a business organization) is admissible as circumstantial evidence of how the person (or business) acted on the occasion at issue in the litigation.
What is habit, for the purposes of admissibility? What are the two defining characteristics of habit?
Habit is a repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances. Habit's two defining characteristics are frequency and particularity.
What are the key words in a fact pattern that signal habit?
always, invariably, automatically, instinctively
What words in a fact pattern indicate business routine?
routinely or something similar
What is the evidentiary utility of industrial custom?
Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in teh recent past may be admitted as some evidence of the appropriate standard of care.
Evidence that a person has or does not have liability insurance is inadmissible for the purpose of _________________.
showing fault or absence of fault
Evidence that a person has or does not have liability insurance may be admissible for what purposes?
Proof of ownership/control of an instrumentality or location if the issue of ownership is controverted by defendant; OR

Impeachment of a witness on the ground of bias (e.g. employee of insurance company)
What should a judge do when evidence is admissible for one purpose but not for another?
The judge should give a limiting instruction, telling the jury to consider the evidence only for the permissible purpose.
State the rule regarding admissibility of subsequent remedial measures.
Post-accident repairs, design changes, and policy changes are inadmissible for the purpose of proving negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning.
When may subsequent remedial measures be admissible?
For some other relevant purpose such as proof of ownership, control, or feasibility of safer condition, IF either is controverted by defendant.
What is the rule regarding a manufacturer's subsequent remedial measure in a strict-liability products liability case?
Not admissible to show the existence of a defect ain the product at the time of the accident.
State the rule regarding admissibility of evidence of what transpired in a settlement discussion.
In the event of a *disputed civil claim*, evidence of settlement, offer to settle, and statements of fact made during settlement discussions are inadmissible for the purpose of showing liability.
What are the exceptions to the exclusion of evidence from settlement discussions?
Admissible for impeaching W on grounds of bias.

Statements of fact made during discussion in litigation with gov't regulatory agcy are admissible in a later criminal case. (NOT offers to settle or settlement)
State the rule regarding admissibility of an offer to plead guilty.
Offer to plead guilty cannot be used against the defendant in the pending criminal case or in subsequent civil litigation based on the same facts.
State the rule regarding the admissibility of a withdrawn guilty plea.
Withdrawn guilty plea cannot be used against the defendant in the pending criminal case or in subsequent civil litigation based on the same facts.
State the rule regarding the admissibility of a plea of nolo contendere.
Cannot be used against the defendant in a subsequent civil litigation based on the same facts.
State the rule regarding statements of fact made during plea bargains and plea discussions.
Such statements of fact are inadmissible.
State the rule regarding the admissibility of a guilty plea in a subsequent civil litigation.
Admissible as a party admission.
State the rule regarding admissibility of an offer to pay hospital or medical expenses.
Inadmissible to prove liability. Does NOT exclude other statements made in connection with an offer to pay hospital or medical expenses.