🦅
Federal Evidence • Policy Considerations & Exclusions
EVID#082
Legal Definition
Where a party offers to compromise, the entire statement is excluded so long as there is an actual dispute as to liability or damages before the offer to compromise or settle was made.
Plain English Explanation
When two people or groups have a disagreement about who is responsible or how much is owed, and one side offers to settle the matter, the law usually keeps this offer secret in court. This is to encourage people to try and solve their disagreements without going to trial.
Imagine two neighbors, Bob and Sam, arguing over a broken fence. Bob thinks Sam should pay for it, but Sam disagrees. To avoid a long fight, Bob offers to pay half if Sam does the same. This kind of offer is called an "offer of compromise." The law keeps such offers secret in court cases. Why? Because we want people to feel safe to make these offers to fix problems without fearing it'll be used against them in court. If these offers were not kept secret, people might stop trying to solve issues peacefully, leading to more court cases. This rule helps keep small disagreements from turning into big legal battles.
However, it's important that there's a real disagreement about the issues at hand. If there's no genuine disagreement - say, both parties already agree on who's responsible or how much should be paid - then the offer can be shown in court. It's a subtle but important nuance that can significantly impact how these offers are treated legally.
Imagine two neighbors, Bob and Sam, arguing over a broken fence. Bob thinks Sam should pay for it, but Sam disagrees. To avoid a long fight, Bob offers to pay half if Sam does the same. This kind of offer is called an "offer of compromise." The law keeps such offers secret in court cases. Why? Because we want people to feel safe to make these offers to fix problems without fearing it'll be used against them in court. If these offers were not kept secret, people might stop trying to solve issues peacefully, leading to more court cases. This rule helps keep small disagreements from turning into big legal battles.
However, it's important that there's a real disagreement about the issues at hand. If there's no genuine disagreement - say, both parties already agree on who's responsible or how much should be paid - then the offer can be shown in court. It's a subtle but important nuance that can significantly impact how these offers are treated legally.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob and Sam have a minor car accident. Bob believes Sam is at fault, but to avoid a legal battle, he offers to pay half the damages if Sam pays the other half. Sam agrees. Result: If they later go to court, Bob's offer to split the costs is excluded from evidence because it was an offer of compromise made during an actual dispute about who was at fault.
Hypo 2: Bob's dog damages Sam's garden. Sam demands compensation. Bob, knowing his dog is responsible, offers to pay for all the damages. Weeks pass but Bob hasn't yet paid so Sam sues. Result: In court, Bob's offer to pay for the damages can be used as evidence against him because there was no actual dispute over liability when he made the offer. He didn't dispute it was his fault and should pay. He just never ended up actually paying. There was no compromise here, just an admission that he did wrong but a refusal to follow through with payment.
Hypo 2: Bob's dog damages Sam's garden. Sam demands compensation. Bob, knowing his dog is responsible, offers to pay for all the damages. Weeks pass but Bob hasn't yet paid so Sam sues. Result: In court, Bob's offer to pay for the damages can be used as evidence against him because there was no actual dispute over liability when he made the offer. He didn't dispute it was his fault and should pay. He just never ended up actually paying. There was no compromise here, just an admission that he did wrong but a refusal to follow through with payment.
Related Concepts
How do California's rules differ from the Federal rules when it comes to the admissibility of humanitarian offers or offers to pay medical expenses?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant having liability insurance?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to humanitarian offers or offers to pay medical expenses?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to pleas?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to subsequent remedial measures?
In California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to expressions of sympathy?
In California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to <subsequent remedial measures>?
