6-1. (a) Object to both as subsequent remedial measures, Rule 407.
(b) Respond that self-study does not fit definition of remedial measure because it does not itself make any changes. Admissibile because relevant.
6-2. (a) Object to evidence of clipping the bush as a subsequent remedial measure (Rule 407).
(b) Respond that it fits an exception -- it is offered to prove ownership or control, which the defendant has contested, so it is not covered by Rule 407. Admissible because relevant.
6-3. (a) Object to design change as subsequent remedial measure under Rule 407.
(b) No good response.
6-4. (a) Object to evidence of the sign as a subsequent remedial measure.
(b) Respond that it fits an exception -- proving ownership or control.
(c) Rebuttal: The defendant has not contested ownership or control, so not a material issue.
6-5. Object as irrelevant (immaterial). There is no issue concerning Bonnie. This is not a Rule 407 issue because no conduct by the defendant is involved.
6-6. Objection to the brochure as a subsequent remedial measure. The rule specifically mentions changes in warnings as being with Rule 407.
6-7. (a) Objection to Alice's statements under Rule 408 as an offer to compromise.
(b) Response: It does not fall within rule as there appears no dispute as to either validity or amount. Clearly relevant to establish liability.
6-8. (a) Object to offer to pay medical expenses, not admissible under Rule 409. Object to offer to pay for pants and embarassment as an "other" related expense under Rule 409.
(b) Response: Statement "all my fault" is admissible. Rule 409 does not apply to statements other than offers to pay.
6-9. (1) Object to statements because they were made during compromise negotiations, Rule 408.
(2) The Rule does not cover documents turned over during negotiations.
(3) If there is no dispute concerning the validity or amount of the claim, Rule 408 does not apply.
(4) It doesn't matter if the case is civil or criminal, although there are scattered cases to the contrary.
6-10. Yes. Impeachment (which we will get to later) is an exception to Rule 408, which prohibits using the evidence to prove liability or damages.
6-11. (1) The offer does not appear to fit the definition of Rule 410, because not made with a prosecuting attorney.
(2) Yes. Such statements are made to the court and not to the prosecutor.
(3) See Rule 106. Discretion of the trial judge.
(4) Even if not within Rule 410, such statements are not admissible. Their admissibility would be governed by Rule 403. Low probative value and high tendency to confuse the issues by bringing up the irrelevant negotiation sessions.
6-12. (1) Courts are split on this issue. Most would probably admit the statement because it seems unconnected to facilitating negotiations in the prior civil case.
(2) The use of a guilty plea in a subsequent civil action is controlled in every jurisdiction by a rule of evidence (common law or statutory) directed to this narrow issue. Most allow a plea in a criminal case to be used in a civil case, but do not allow a plea of guilty to a traffic offense to be used, and do not allow an admission of civil liability to be used in a criminal case.
6-13. Sure. Not within definition of Rule 410.
6-14. (1) Object to evidence of careful driving as inadmissible character, Rule 404.
(2) Object to evidence of insurance-- not admissible on issue of liability. Rule 411.
6-15. Object to evidence of insurance -- not admissible on issue of liability under Rule 411.
6-16. Judge can do whatever s/he wants. Judges have broad discretion in ruling on matters of relevancy. I would have admitted the evidence, however. It goes not to the issue of liability, but fits an exception to Rule 411 -- impeachment. The employee of the defending insurance company can be expected to give testimony favoring the defense.