In a legal context, evidence is relevant if it meets two criteria. The first criteria that it must be reasonably likely to prove or disprove some issue in the case. The second criteria is that it must not be something that is likely to confuse or prejudice the jury.
A graphic description of a bloody crime scene proves that something horrific happened. In that sense, it proves or disproves an issue in the case. The description however is highly prejudicial because it inflames the jury. That prejudice makes the description irrelevant.
Relevancy Car Accident Cases
To identify what is relevant or not relevant, the issue must be correctly identified. That is a problem. Many times an attorney either misstates the issue or doesn’t identify the issue.
In a product liability case involving an auto, the issue is whether the product was defective and did the defendant know that. The fact that the product gets rave reviews on Google is not relevant. That simply proves that it gets rave reviews. That doesn’t prove that the product does not have a defect. It likewise does not prove that the defendant did not have notice of the defect.
Discussions by the defendant to make the product better are not relevant. If that is all that is being discussed, then that does not prove any defect in the product. It simply proves that the defendant wants to make the product better. If in the course of those discussions there are comments made about a number of prior accidents involving the product, then that may be relevant as to whether the defendant knew about the defect.
In most personal injury cases, the mention of insurance is not relevant. The issue in most personal injury cases is whether there was some breach of duty which caused injury. The fact that the plaintiff may be compensated by some other source does not prove or disprove that issue.
The fact that the defendant after an accident corrected the problem is not relevant. That subsequent remedial repair from a social point-of-view is something that we want to encourage people to do. They should not be punished for doing that.
Settlement discussions are not relevant. The courts want the parties to discuss settlement. What they say in the context of settlement may prove or disprove an issue about the case but the statements are considered to be highly prejudicial if admitted in the courtroom. They have the effect of discouraging settlement discussions. The courts want the parties to discuss settlement.
Relevancy in a Medical Malpractice Case
In a medical malpractice case, the issue is whether the defendant engaged in conduct that was substandard. The fact that the risk of injury may have been disclosed to the patient does not prove or disprove that issue. Even if there had been a disclosure, that does not excuse the defendant’s fault. If however there is an informed consent claim in the case, then that disclosure may be relevant.
Relevancy is a crucial concept. To understand it, the issue in the case needs to be properly identified and then the two questions as stated above need to be asked. Is the evidence likely to prove or disprove some issue in the case? Is the evidence unduly prejudicial or confusing?
Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on car accidents see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with tort issues.
