Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
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.
|
