 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hancock v. Shook3/18/2003
er of documents in front of him on the conference table. One of these documents was a letter seeking compensation from Mr. Hancock's insurer for the culling of eleven dairy cows as a result of aflatoxicosis. However, this letter was never specifically identified to the jury or offered into evidence.
In the video, Mr. Hancock was asked a series of five questions concerning " ;eleven cows culled for slaughter." These questions dealt with whether or not the cows were pregnant when they were culled and for how long they had been milked. The only reference to the letter in the entire video was when Mr. Hancock was asked, "You're not able to tell us how many days those cows had been milked before?" He answered, "No, not by this letter, I sure couldn't."1.Because settlements are encouraged under the law, the general rule is that evidence procured from settlement is to be excluded at trial. Owen v. Owen , 642 S.W.2d 410, 414 (Mo. App. 1982). See also IV J OHN H ENRY W IGMORE, W IGMORE ON E VIDENCE section 1061 (1972). Such evidence is normally excluded because a party making a settlement offer should not be penalized by revealing an offer to the jury if negotiations fail. Owen, 642 S.W.2d at 414. See also W IGMORE . Allowing evidence of settlement and negotiation to come before the jury creates a possibility of bias that has no place in our system of justice. The jury could perceive the offering party as admitting guilt or conceding harm and the jury could perceive the refusing party as stubborn, greedy, or mean spirited. The jury could also be confused by a compromise position acceptable for settlement, but less favorable than the result a party might seek at trial.
The evidence on the videotape and as presented to the jury does not suggest the type of injury that this rule is designed to protect. The jury was in no way made aware of any offer of settlement or any claim of insurance. As the evidence appeared on the videotape, Mr. Hancock was simply being asked questions regarding eleven culled cows. This Court was not provided with the complete deposition transcript. However, the appearance from the videotape is that Mr. Hancock offered independent testimony and merely used the letter to refresh his recollection. He was questioned:
Q: Now, of the eleven cows you refer to here that were sold for slaughter, none of those cows were pregnant when they were sold, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: All right. So of the eleven cows that were sold, you weren't able to determine that any of them were in fact pregnant --
A: Correct.
Q: You're not able to tell us how many days those cows had been milked before?
A: No, not by this letter, I sure couldn't.
In none of the questions on the videotape was settlement of Mr. Hancock's claims discussed. Nor does it appear that Mr. Hancock's statements reflected compromise positions.
The evidence presented to the jury did not risk the kind of harm against which the rule protects. It cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the videotape to be shown to the jury. 2.When it became clear that the trial court was going to allow the deposition video to come into evidence, Mr. Hancock sought to have the entire settlement letter admitted under the doctrine of completeness. The court explained to Mr. Hancock that it would not allow the letter into evidence because to do so would present evidence of the actual negotiations to the jury. However, the court also informed Mr. Hancock that he could submit similar statements from the letter, so long as the statement could stand on its own and contained no reference to the settlement or insurance. Finally, the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|