60-452. Offer to compromise and the like, not evidence of liability. Evidence that a person has, in compromise or from humanitarian motives furnished or offered or promised to furnish money, or any other thing, act or service to another who has sustained or claims to have sustained loss or damage, is inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the loss or damage of any part of it. This section shall not affect the admissibility of evidence (a) of partial satisfaction of an asserted claim on demand without questioning its validity, as tending to prove the validity of the claim, or (b) of a debtor's payment or promise to pay all or a part of his or her pre-existing debt as tending to prove the creation of a new duty on his or her part, or a revival of his or her pre-existing duty.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-452; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Evidence of Similar Incidents and Settlements on Proof of Defect in Products Liability Cases," Jerry R. Palmer, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 14, 16 (1980).
"Evidence of Settlement with Joint Tortfeasors," Randall Rathbun, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 19, 20 (1982).
"Evidence: Settlement Offers Not Relevant For Mitigating Punitive Damages," James B. Albertson, 23 W.L.J. 452, 459, 461 (1984).
"Keeping the Family Out of Court: Court-Ordered Mediation of Custody Disputes Under the Kansas Statutes," Nancy G. Maxwell, 25 W.L.J. 203, 232, 233 (1986).
"Closing Argument: The Final Fatal Flaw," Roger W. Badeker, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 37, 40 (1991).
"Honor in Battle: The Conflict between Candor and Zealous Advocacy," J. Nick Badgerow, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 16 (2001).
"Introducing Evidence of Settlement in Multi-Defendant Medical Malpractice Cases," Tom Pickert, K.D.J. Fall, Issue II (2008).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Testimony of payment made to appellant by appellee in personal injury action properly refused. Patterson v. Burt, 213 Kan. 463, 466, 516 P.2d 975.
2. Mentioned; attempt at settlement inadmissible in evidence to establish amount of loss and not a reasonable basis for computation of loss. Venable v. Import Volkswagen, Inc., 214 Kan. 43, 51, 519 P.2d 667.
3. A statement that Orkin would retreat needed areas is admissible to prove waiver of notice provision even if it could be construed as an offer of settlement. Atkinson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 5 Kan. App. 2d 739, 751, 625 P.2d 505.
4. Purpose of statute is to protect defendant from improper inference of liability; statute is silent on punitive damages. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 Kan. 555, 566, 567, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).
5. Not error to test credibility on cross-examination of previous repair estimates when settlement offers not mentioned. Thomas v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 233 Kan. 775, 779, 666 P.2d 676 (1983).
6. Testimony by plaintiff's wife of willingness to pay certain sum for husband's ranch interest not offer of compromise; evidence of valuation. Reich v. Reich, 235 Kan. 339, 344, 680 P.2d 545 (1984).
7. Refusal to accept offer intended to satisfy claim cannot be used to mitigate damages. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Clay, 13 Kan. App. 2d 435, 447, 773 P.2d 666 (1989).
8. Evidence of settlement examined where offered to prove something other than liability; measure of damages under ambiguous insurance clause determined. Dodson Aviation, Inc. v. Rollins, Burdick, Hunter of Kansas, Inc., 15 Kan. App. 2d 314, 321, 807 P.2d 1319 (1991).
9. Admissibility of evidence regarding settlement. Lytle v. Stearns, 250 Kan. 783, 830 P.2d 1197 (1992).
10. Whether admission of evidence of settlement was abuse of discretion requiring reversal examined. Hess v. St. Francis Regional Med. Center, 254 Kan. 715, 721, 869 P.2d 598 (1994).
11. Whether court erred by failing to disclose existence and terms of settlement between plaintiff and one defendant-witness examined. Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 256 Kan. 90, 127, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).
12. Rule not applicable where evidence not admitted to prove invalidity of plaintiff's claim. Haley v. Brown, 36 Kan. App. 2d 432, 441, 140 P.3d 1051 (2006).
|
|