Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
10. Is the statement about the slush in the entryway admissible?
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff sued a retail store for injuries she sustained from a fall in the store. The plaintiff alleged that the store had negligently allowed its entryway to become slippery from snow tracked in from the sidewalk. Before the lawsuit was filed, when the plaintiff first threatened to sue, the store's manager said, «I know that there was slush on that marble entryway, but I think your four-inch-high heels were the real cause of your fall. So let's agree that we'll pay your medical bills, and you release us from any claims you might have.» The plaintiff refused the offer. At trial, the plaintiff seeks to testify to the manager's statement that «there was slush on that marble entryway.»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Similarly, evidence that a party paid (or offered to pay) the injured party's medical expenses is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. Fed. R. Evid. 409. However, unlike the situation with compromise negotiation, admissions of fact accompanying offers to pay medical expenses are admissible.
A is correct. Under FRE 408, when there has been an express or implied indication that a claim may be raised by a party, any conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations is inadmissible. Here, there was a dispute, and the manager's statement was made in an effort to settle that dispute. Therefore, the entire statement is inadmissible under FRE 408.
While an admission of fact accompanying an offer to pay medical bills would normally be admissible, here, the offer to pay medical bills was part of a greater settlement negotiation, making any accompanying admissions of fact inadmissible. The manager's statement «.. . and you release us from any claims you might have.» elevated his statement from more than just an offer to pay medical expenses but instead, an effort to settle any future claims. Thus, FRE 408 applies and the manager's entire statement is inadmissible.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The fact that the manager denied that the slippery condition was the cause of the plaintiff's fall is not what renders the statement about the slush inadmissible. As explained above, the reason that the statement is inadmissible is because of FRE 408, which protects compromise negotiations, which means the statement about the slippery condition is inadmissible.
C is incorrect. The statement was by an agent about a matter within his authority, but that only means that the statement is not excluded as hearsay. As stated above, FRE 408 is another ground for exclusion, so the statement is inadmissible even though it would otherwise satisfy the hearsay rule.
D is incorrect. Under FRE 408, not only are offers to compromise protected, but also «conduct or statements made in the course of compromise negotiations.» The rationale is to allow the parties and counsel to speak freely during settlement negotiations, without having to worry that their statements will be used against them at trial. Here, there was a dispute, and the manager's statement was made in an attempt to settle that dispute. Therefore, the statement would be excluded under FRE 408.