Denied.
DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., concur, believing that the trial judge nevertheless has the power and discretion to modify his ruling during trial, if necessary, to prevent a miscarriage of justice by admitting evidence of compromise to show bias or prejudice of a witness. See Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, Supplement page 56.
MARCUS, J., would grant, allowing admission of the settlement subject to the control of the trial court.
[4] CALOGERO, Justice, dissents.
A blanket pre-trial ruling excluding any evidence whatsoever of the settlement agreement is overly broad. Bias of witnesses is a proper subject of cross-examination. It is hardly conceivable to me that there will not arise at trial the occasion to permit the jury to know that GHR, whose employees will testify, has an interest in plaintiff's success in this case.
LEMMON, Justice, dissents.
Evidence of compromise is admissible to show bias of a witness. In order to prevent the jury from being misled, the remaining defendant (at least at the time of cross examination) should be permitted to introduce evidence of the "Mary Carter" agreement only to the extent of showing that the released dependents have a financial interest in plaintiff's recovery against the remaining defendant, and the trial should give a cautionary instruction as to the restricted use of this evidence.