🦅
Federal Evidence • Policy Considerations & Exclusions
EVID#083
Legal Definition
Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses are inadmissible to prove liability for the injuries in question, although any admissions made surrounding the offers is admissible.
Plain English Explanation
In court, if someone offers to pay for someone else's medical bills after an accident, this offer can't be used to prove they were responsible for the accident. However, if they say something that admits they were at fault while making the offer, that statement can be used in court.
Imagine you accidentally bump into someone in a store, causing them to fall and get hurt. You feel bad and offer to pay for their doctor's visit. Legally, your offer to help with the medical bill can't be used against you to show you were at fault for the accident. The law understands that sometimes people want to help others out of kindness, not because they're admitting they did something wrong. However, if you said something like, "I'm sorry, I wasn't looking where I was going," while offering to pay, this admission could be used in court. It's like the law saying, "We won't punish you for being nice, but we will hold you accountable for what you admit."
This may seem like a weird rule, but society has 2 goals. The first goal is to encourage people who actually are at fault for causing harm to volunteer to pay for their victim's expenses without worrying it might lead to them being sued. But the second goal is to protect socially awkward people, or just super generous people, who know they didn't cause the issue but rather than deal with drama (or out of the kindness of their heart) still offer to compensate the victim.
For example, imagine you're in line at Starbucks and there's an exhausted parent holding 2 children in line ahead of you waiting to pick up drinks. When the parent turns around, they see you and startle themselves causing them to drop their coffees, spilling all over their new shoes. You didn't cause this, but you may be inclined to say, "Sorry about that, let me buy you some new coffees." You don't say this out of guilt because you did something wrong, but out of sympathy for the person's situation. Thus, if the parent tried to sue you for their messed up shoes, they can't say, "They offered to buy me new drinks because they knew they purposefully scared me."
Imagine you accidentally bump into someone in a store, causing them to fall and get hurt. You feel bad and offer to pay for their doctor's visit. Legally, your offer to help with the medical bill can't be used against you to show you were at fault for the accident. The law understands that sometimes people want to help others out of kindness, not because they're admitting they did something wrong. However, if you said something like, "I'm sorry, I wasn't looking where I was going," while offering to pay, this admission could be used in court. It's like the law saying, "We won't punish you for being nice, but we will hold you accountable for what you admit."
This may seem like a weird rule, but society has 2 goals. The first goal is to encourage people who actually are at fault for causing harm to volunteer to pay for their victim's expenses without worrying it might lead to them being sued. But the second goal is to protect socially awkward people, or just super generous people, who know they didn't cause the issue but rather than deal with drama (or out of the kindness of their heart) still offer to compensate the victim.
For example, imagine you're in line at Starbucks and there's an exhausted parent holding 2 children in line ahead of you waiting to pick up drinks. When the parent turns around, they see you and startle themselves causing them to drop their coffees, spilling all over their new shoes. You didn't cause this, but you may be inclined to say, "Sorry about that, let me buy you some new coffees." You don't say this out of guilt because you did something wrong, but out of sympathy for the person's situation. Thus, if the parent tried to sue you for their messed up shoes, they can't say, "They offered to buy me new drinks because they knew they purposefully scared me."
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: In a supermarket, Bob's cart bumps into Sam, causing Sam to fall and sprain his ankle. Bob says, "I'm so sorry, let me cover your medical costs. I didn't see you there!" Result: While Bob's offer to cover the medical costs is not admissible to prove fault, his statement "I didn't see you there" can be used as an admission of fault.
Hypo 2: Bob's dog escapes and bites Sam, who is jogging by. Bob offers to pay Sam's medical bills but makes no comment about the incident. Result: Bob's offer to pay for the medical bills cannot be used in court to prove that he was responsible for the dog biting Sam.
Hypo 3: At a party, Bob accidentally spills hot coffee on Sam, causing a burn. Bob immediately offers to pay for any treatment needed and says, "I'm always so clumsy with drinks." Result: Bob's offer to pay for the treatment is not admissible in court, but his statement about being clumsy with drinks could be considered an admission of negligence.
Hypo 2: Bob's dog escapes and bites Sam, who is jogging by. Bob offers to pay Sam's medical bills but makes no comment about the incident. Result: Bob's offer to pay for the medical bills cannot be used in court to prove that he was responsible for the dog biting Sam.
Hypo 3: At a party, Bob accidentally spills hot coffee on Sam, causing a burn. Bob immediately offers to pay for any treatment needed and says, "I'm always so clumsy with drinks." Result: Bob's offer to pay for the treatment is not admissible in court, but his statement about being clumsy with drinks could be considered an admission of negligence.
Visual Aids
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 an offer of compromise between parties?
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>?
