Evidence of the possession or lack of liability insurance is not admissible on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 411. Evidence of insurance may be offered for another purpose, such as to show bias, ownership, or control. Id. (photo:...
Evidence of offers, conduct or statements made during settlement negotiations regarding a claim that is disputed as to validity or amount are not admissible to prove liability or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 408. Evidence that is otherwise discoverable is not excluded under Rule 408 simply because it was revealed during settlement negotiations. Id. Settlement negotiations may be admissible on a point...
Action taken after an injury which might have made the injury less likely is generally not admissible to show fault or product defect. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407. This rule of exclusion applies in negligence, warranty, and strict liability cases. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407, Advisory Committee Comment – 2006 Amendments. Rule 407 does not exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to show ownership, control,...
As alluded to in a previous post, evidence of a person’s habit (or an organization’s routine practice) is considered separately from character evidence. Where character evidence is a generalized description of one’s disposition, habit is a regular response to a repeated, specific situation. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 406, Advisory Committee Comment. Questions used to determine whether particular behavior qualifies as a habit...
I wanted to address the silence on this site in the past couple weeks and provide an update about the future of this blog. After touching on a few topics, I realized that the site really needs a library of basic posts that can be referenced when reporting on a new case or change in the law. In order to create something truly of value to readers, I need to start from the very beginning. Therefore, during the next few months, this blog will be...