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;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Limited Admissibility
|
When evidence is admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another purpose, it is admissible so long as the court restricts the evidence to its admissible scope.
|
|
Relevance definition
|
Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the outcome of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
|
|
Evidence general rule
|
Generally evidence must relate to the time, event or person involved in the present litigation.
|
|
Two step approach to relevance question
|
1) Determine whether it is relevant. 2) Determine whether it should be excluded based on a)judicial discretion(probative substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice b) public policy
|
|
Exclusion for public policy
|
liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlements, payments on offers to pay medical expenses
|
|
Exclusion of liability insurance
|
Liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence or defendant's ability to pay a judgment. It is admissible to prove anything else
|
|
Exclusion of subsequent remedial measures
|
inadmissible to prove culpable conduct and/or defective product design. Is admissible to prove defense of no feasible precaution, ownership or control, to impeach or as part of an admission
|
|
Exclusion of settlement offers and pleas
|
Civil case = inadmissible to prove liability or fault. Criminal -= pleas withdrawn or offers to plea inadmissible to prove guilt. Exception where no claim filed or threatened or no dispute as to liability or damages
|
|
Exclusion of offers to pay medical expenses
|
Inadmissible to prove liability for injuries in question.
|
|
When similar occurences are relevant
|
When there are similarities between the evidence and the people & events at issue.
|
|
Similar occurences: causation
|
Issues of causation may be established by evidence concerning other times, events or persons (damage to nearby homes caused by blasting)
|
|
Similar occurences: Prior claims or same bodily injury
|
Prior accidents or claim of Plaintiff are usually irrelevant. Exception for pattern of fraudulent claims or pre-existing condition.
|
|
Similar occurences: Similar accidents or injuries caused by same event or condition
|
Admissible to prove 1) existence of dangerous condition, 2) that defendant had knowledge of the dangerous condition, and 3) that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury
|
|
Absence of similar acts
|
Courts are relutant to admit this evidence, but is admissible to show D's lack of knowledge
|
|
Previous similar acts
|
Relevant to prove intent of the parties
|
|
Similar occurences:Prior occurences for Rebuttal
|
Prior occurences may be shown to rebut a claim for impossibility.
|
|
Sale of similar property
|
This evidence is relevant to establish value when in issue (condemnation or when property was destroyed) Must be similar property, same area and sold at the same time.
|
|
Habit
|
Habit of a person to act in a certain way is relevant and admissible to show the person acted in accordance with that habit on the occasion. Habit = frequently repeated conduct
|
|
Routine business practice
|
Relevant to show conduct of the entity was in conformity with that practice.
|
|
Industrial custom evidence
|
Relevant to prove standard of care in negligence cases.
|