0810

I would argue that the evidence does not fit the definition of a compromise offer under Rule 408 because at the time the statement was made, there had been no claim made and there was no dispute as to the validity or amount of any claim.

That is half the response -- because Rule 403 says all evidence must be relevant and not too prejudicial to be admitted.

It is relevant to show Caterpillar’s faulty design and as circumstantial evidence that Hart was taking some of the blame for not keeping dozers in good repair.  

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0810.

What if instead, the defense objected that this evidence was excluded under Rule 409 as an offer to pay expenses, which does not require that there be a disputed claim. What is plaintiff’s best response? When you think you know the answer, click here.