Public Policy Exclusions in Evidence Law

Certain types of evidence that would otherwise be admissible are excluded for reasons or public policy. What makes this area tricky is that evidence even if excluded for public policy considerations might be admissible for other reasons. In other words, this evidence is not irrelevant. It's relevant but excluded for specific purposes. So, it's important to understand not just what evidence is offered, but why the evidence is offered. Keep that in mind for other aspects of Evidence as well. 

One public policy consideration concerns liability insurance. Evidence of a party's insurance against liability (or no insurance against liability) is not admissible if the purpose of offering the evidence is to show whether the party acted negligently. It is, however, admissible to prove ownership or control, or to impeach a witness (often for bias). 

It's also admissible as part of an admission of liability. In other words, if in the same statement someone admits liability while also affirming insurance coverage, the affirmation of insurance, and if the affirmation of insurance coverage cannot be severed, then the entire statement including the part about insurance coverage, is admissible.

Another public policy involves subsequent remedial measures. Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning. It is admissible to prove ownership/control, or to rebut a claim that a precaution was not feasible. It's also admissible to prove that the opposing party has destroyed evidence. 

The next public policy consideration involves civil settlements and settlement negotiations. Evidence of a settlement or an offer to compromise a civil claim is not admissible in any case to prove or to disprove the validity or amount of the disputed claim. Likewise, this type of evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statements or by contradiction. It is, however, admissible to impeach a witness for bias.

Not only is the evidence of a settlement or offer to compromise inadmissible for these purposes, but any statements made in the course of negotiation or in the course of settling are also inadmissible for these purposes. For this public policy exclusion to apply, there must either be a claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim. The claim also must have been in dispute as to either liability or to amount. 

The next public policy exclusion involves plea discussions. The following are all inadmissible in any criminal or civil case against the defendant who made the plea or participated in plea discussions: offers to plead guilty; withdrawn guilty pleas (make sure the guilty plea was withdrawn before applying this exclusion); pleas of no contest; and statements of fact made during any of the previously mentioned pleas. 

Last up is the public policy exclusion for payment of and offers to pay medical expenses. Evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an injured person's medical, hospital, or similar expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for the injury. Here, though, statements made in connection with these payments are admissible. This is a distinction to note: with the settlement negotiations connected statements are inadmissible, but with payments of medical expenses only the statements about having paid or having offered to pay such expenses are excluded. Sometimes an offer to pay a medical expense might be embedded within a larger settlement offer; in that case apply the more restrictive exclusion rule for offers to settle so that connected statements to the offer are also inadmissible.