Privileges & Policy Exclusions — NextGen Bar practice question

Moments after a two-car crash and before anyone has asserted a claim or disputed anything, one driver hurries over to the other, who is visibly injured, and blurts out: “I am so sorry — I completely ran the red light. Please, let me pay your hospital bills.” The injured driver is later treated at some expense and then sues. At trial, she wants to introduce both the driver’s statement that he ran the red light and his offer to pay her medical expenses.

What, if anything, is admissible?

Option A. Incorrect answer. Both statements are excluded, because together they were a single humane gesture.
Option B. Incorrect answer. Both statements are admissible, because at that moment no claim had yet been asserted or genuinely disputed.
Option C. Correct answer. The admission of running the light comes in, but the offer to pay medical bills is excluded.Correct
Option D. Incorrect answer. Only the offer to pay is admissible, to show that the driver accepted responsibility.

Why

Rule 409 excludes offers or promises to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses when offered to prove liability — but, unlike Rule 408, it protects only the payment or offer, not any accompanying statements, and it needs no disputed claim. So “let me pay your hospital bills” is excluded, while the confession “I ran the red light” comes in (C). A over-protects by treating the whole gesture as covered; 409 does not shield the admission that rides along with the offer. B under-protects: the absence of a dispute is irrelevant to 409, which applies regardless, and the offer to pay is still excluded. D is backwards — the offer to pay is the one thing kept out, and it is not admitted to show “responsibility.” Had this happened while negotiating a disputed claim, 408 would also have shielded the admission.

Why