March 29, 2006
"SORRY," BEATS THE HECK OUT OF A TORT CLAIM (via Raoul Ortega):
British Columbia bill would allow apologies without legal fallout (The Associated Press
Sorry may soon no longer be so hard to say in British Columbia.The provincial government on Tuesday became the first in Canada to propose legislation that would allow people and organizations to apologize without risking liability for damages or other penalties. Under the measure, evidence of an apology would not be admissible in legal proceedings.
"There are times when an apology is very important and appropriate, but the legal implications have long been uncertain," provincial Attorney General Wallace T. Oppal said in the legislature.
"The Apology Act is designed to promote the early and mutually beneficial resolution of disputes by allowing parties to express honest regret or remorse," Oppal said.
Such apologies seem to be one way to limit medical malpractice lawsuits. Sometimes folks just want to hear you acknowledge you screwed up. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2006 7:50 PM
May this also lead to the dilution of an apology rendering them almost meaningless?
Posted by: pchuck at March 29, 2006 9:23 PMWhy? There's no reason to believe that, for example, a doctor who makes a mistake isn't genuinely sorry about it but afraid to tell the patient because it will trigger a lawsuit.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2006 9:32 PMOld ground for the (shockingly numerous) lawyers here, but we have several similar rules of evidence already in U.S. federal courts and in most state courts. (Maybe in Canada too, for all I know.) You can't introduce evidence of offers to settle, evidence of the existence (or not) of liability insurance, or evidence of post-injury remedial measures to show liability for an injury, because we don't wish to discourage people from settling out of court, maintaining insurance, and preventing the same accident from happening again. (Federal Rules of Evidence 408, 411 and 407, respectively.) More to the point, you can't introduce evidence of paying or offering to pay medical or hospital bills occasioned by an injury as proof of liability for the injury (F.R.E. 409); barring evidence of an apology seems like much the same thing, only cheaper.
I'd like to think that the fact that I've seen Rules 407, 408 and 411 invoked repeatedly, but Rule 409 never, tells me no more than that I don't do a lot of tort cases, but Christian skepticism about fallen human nature will out.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at March 29, 2006 10:01 PM