Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
Rule 409: Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
What is Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses?
Rule 409 is one of the simplest evidence rules. It provides that offers or payments of medical expenses cannot be used to prove that the person paying was at fault for the injury. If someone pays another person's hospital bills after a car accident, that payment cannot be introduced as evidence that the payer caused the accident.
Source: Fed. R. Evid. 409
Rule Text
Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
Plain English Explanation
Rule 409 is one of the simplest evidence rules. It provides that offers or payments of medical expenses cannot be used to prove that the person paying was at fault for the injury. If someone pays another person's hospital bills after a car accident, that payment cannot be introduced as evidence that the payer caused the accident.
The humanitarian purpose behind this rule is clear: society wants to encourage people to help injured persons by covering their medical costs. Without this protection, Good Samaritans might hesitate to offer financial help for fear it would be treated as an admission of responsibility.
Importantly, Rule 409 is narrower than Rule 408. It only protects the offer or payment itself — it does not protect accompanying statements. If someone says 'I'm sorry I ran that red light — let me pay your hospital bills,' the offer to pay the bills is excluded under 409, but the admission about running the red light is still admissible. This is a crucial distinction from Rule 408, which also protects statements made during settlement negotiations.
Key Points
- 1Offers or payments of medical expenses are inadmissible to prove liability
- 2The rule encourages humanitarian assistance to injured persons
- 3The rule is narrow — it only protects the offer or payment itself, NOT accompanying statements of fault
- 4This is a key difference from Rule 408, which also protects statements made during negotiations
Common Exam Issues
- Distinguishing the protected payment/offer from unprotected accompanying admissions of fault
- Comparing Rule 409 (medical expenses — statements not protected) with Rule 408 (settlement — statements protected)
- Fact patterns where someone offers to pay medical bills while simultaneously admitting fault
Landmark Cases
- Williams v. Trader Publishing Co.
- Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge
Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
This rule is part of Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Browse All FRE RulesMaster Evidence Law with AI-Powered Study Tools
20+ tools to help you study smarter. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.
Start Free Trial