|
Public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence, in the law of evidence in the United States, encompass several types of evidence that would be relevant to prove facts at issue in a legal proceeding, but which are nonetheless excluded because of public policy concerns. There are five major areas of exclusion that arise out of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE"): subsequent remedial measures, ownership of liability insurance, offers to plead guilty to a crime, offers to settle a claim, and offers to pay medical expenses. Many states have modified versions of the FRE under their own state evidence codes which widen or narrow the public policy exclusions in state courts. The exclusionary rule, under which evidence gathered by the police from an illegal search is excluded, is of similar operation but is typically considered separately. ==Subsequent remedial measures== A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE (407 ) prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible for two reasons. First, courts do not want to discourage defendants from taking steps that further safety. Second, excluding subsequent remedial measures from evidence avoids having to give juries the difficult task of distinguishing between defendant's due care prior to plaintiff's injury, and defendant's due care subsequent to plaintiff's injury. Subsequent remedial measures are, however, admissible into evidence for # witness impeachment purposes # proving defendant's ''ownership'' of the instrumentality that injured the plaintiff, ''if'' ownership is disputed # proving defendant's ''control'' of the instrumentality that injured the plaintiff, ''if'' control is disputed # proving the ''feasibility'' of undertaking precautionary measures, ''if'' feasibility is disputed Example: In a slip and fall claim where plaintiff falls on the wooden steps leading into a building, defendant decides, as the ambulance is taking plaintiff to the hospital, to quickly sand down the stairs where plaintiff injured herself. FRE (407 ) prohibits plaintiff from introducing evidence of this subsequent remedial measure to prove that the steps were hazardous ''at the time of her injury''. If defendant says that he did not own the building where the plaintiff fell, and plaintiff disputes this claim, plaintiff may introduce evidence that the defendant sanded the stairs ''to show that defendant did, in fact, own the property on which the steps are located'' at the time her injury occurred. If defendant claims that there was nothing he could have done to make the steps safer at the time of plaintiff's slip and fall, and plaintiff disputes this allegation, plaintiff may introduce evidence of the subsequent remedial measure ''to prove that undertaking precautionary measures was, in fact, feasible''. * Note that in California, California Evidence Code ("CEC") §(1151 ) designates as inadmissible evidence of subsequent remedial measures only if it is being offered to prove (1) negligence or (2) culpable conduct; California state courts, therefore, have abandoned the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when being used to prove defects in defendant's product or design of defendant's product, or to prove that there was a need for a warning or instruction. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|