0809

I would argue that the judge should admit the evidence because it helps prove economic feasibility, an exception to Rule 407, which Caterpillar has placed in issue -- they moved the cab forward on a similar piece of equipment and the company didn’t go bankrupt.

You are the judge -- how do you rule?  

Probative vale depends on the degree of similarity. Can you tell by comparing the bulldozer and loader photos?  Maybe.

If not what do we do? What rule will now control the admissibility of the evidence? Probably Rule 104(b). Its relevancy depends upon proof of a fact -- that the two vehicles are similar --  and the judge can admit it now or make the plaintiff prove the similarity first.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0809.

Look at problem 8A part 4.  If the statement by Hart’s project leader were offered as evidence and objected to as an inadmissible compromise offer under Rule 408, what would be Romano’s best argument for admissibility?

When you think you know the answer, click here to continue.