Under Rule 409, evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or paying medical expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability. Which statement best describes this rule?

• A. It is admissible to prove liability.
• B. It is not admissible to prove liability, but may be offered for other purposes.
• C. It is admissible to prove the amount of medical expenses.
• D. It is admissible to prove the defendant's intent to pay.

Answer: (B)

Rule 409 focuses on medical expense payments and how they relate to proving liability. It says that evidence about furnishing, promising to pay, or paying medical expenses resulting from an injury cannot be used to prove who was at fault. The point is to prevent paying a medical bill from serving as proof of liability. But that same evidence isn’t barred from every use: it may be offered for other legitimate purposes, such as showing the extent of damages the plaintiff incurred (the amount of medical expenses) or to illuminate other non-liability-related issues like witness bias, when relevant.

So the best description is that this evidence is not admissible to prove liability, but may be offered for other purposes. The other choices either imply it can prove liability, or focus on an aspect (like the exact amount or the defendant’s intent) that isn’t the general scope of Rule 409’s use.