Opinion ID: 2064916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should trial court have permitted Fullerton to show its offers to mitigate Pogges' damages?

Text: Fullerton attempted to show numerous post-construction negotiations. Pogges objected to this evidence on the ground the testimony related to offers of compromise. Portions of this information eventually were elicited, but Fullerton was never permitted to show that in addition to its offer to refund Pogges' $16,000 payment on the house, it offered to remove the house and leave the foundation and basement. Pogges make no attempt to defend trial court's rulings but argue in their brief the error, if any, was harmless. The offer of settlement or compromise exclusionary rule is designed to exclude this evidence only when it is tendered as an admission of weakness of the other party's claim or defense, not when it is tendered to prove a fact other than liability. See Suntken v. Suntken, 223 Iowa 347, 358, 272 N.W. 132, 138 (1937); Fed.R.Evid. 408; McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 274, at 664 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 286 (1964) (offer of compromise may be admissible as relevant circumstantial evidence of a fact other than that of liability). The exclusionary rule protected Fullerton and could be waived by it. See IV J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1061, at 34-35 (J. Chadbourn rev.ed. 1972). In this case Fullerton was entitled to present evidence in mitigation of Pogges' claim for punitive damages. 25 & 25A C.J.S. Damages §§ 127, 159 (1966) (defendant may rebut, or offer in mitigation, evidence on such issues as malice); 22 Am. Jur.2d Damages § 263 (1965) (all circumstances surrounding transaction supporting claim for punitive damages, including any mitigating circumstances, may be considered). In Redman v. Department of Education, 519 P.2d 760, 767-69 (Alaska 1974), the court held an employer's offer to relocate an improperly dismissed employee, even though it may have constituted an offer of compromise, was admissible because it was offered for purposes of mitigation. Fullerton's announced purpose in submitting this evidence was the same. For reasons stated in division I, we reverse the judgment entered in district court and remand for new trial in conformance herewith. REVERSED AND REMANDED. All Justices concur except HARRIS, J., who concurs in divisions I and II and the result.