Opinion ID: 1382228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Statements During Settlement Negotiations

Text: (7) Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by plaintiff's agent, Olson, during settlement negotiations. Defendant offered to prove that, during settlement discussions, Olson admitted that Potts recounted to him a version of the Potts-Bass telephone conversation which was practically word for word the same as Bass' own version. Such testimony might have impeached Potts' direct testimony to the effect that he advised Bass that defendant's bid was a hell of a lot lower than the other bids. The trial court properly excluded the evidence, for under Evidence Code section 1152, subdivision (a), conduct or statements made in negotiation [of compromise] ... [are] inadmissible to prove ... liability.... Defendant relies on People ex rel. Dept. Public Works v. Forster (1962) 58 Cal.2d 257, 263-265 [23 Cal. Rptr. 582, 373 P.2d 630], wherein we held that an independent and absolute admission of fact which is intended to admit liability is admissible even though it was made during the course of compromise negotiations. The Forster case, however, was decided prior to the enactment of section 1152, and the comment of the California Law Revision Commission make it clear that the current language of this section changed the prior law under the Forster decision. According to the commission, [t]he rule of the Forster case is changed by Section 1152 because that rule prevents the complete candor between the parties that is most conducive to settlement. (See County of San Joaquin v. Galletti (1967) 252 Cal. App.2d 840, 842-843 [61 Cal. Rptr. 62]; see also Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) pp. 337-338; but see Moving Picture etc. Union v. Glasgow Theaters, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d 395, 402 [86 Cal. Rptr. 33].) In the present case, the excluded admission occurred during compromise negotiations in which both parties were discussing, and attempting to discover, the facts underlying their dispute. The strong public policy favoring settlement negotiations and the necessity of candor in conducting them combine to require exclusion of Olson's admission. The judgment is affirmed.