Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

but thats not the lawthe law is what the cases say

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: a subsequent remedial action! Reason for rule 407: 403 type thing...yes, it's supposed to be judged by foresight in negligence cases, but it's hard to do......hard for a jury to do...so if you allow the subsequent remedial measure it makes it all the harder! Even when Rule 407 does not bar the introduction of subsequent remedial measure evidence, it may still be ruled inadmissible under 403. Court must weight the probative value of its permissible use against that danger that it will be impermissibly used as evidence of negligence or culpable conduct. Note 1: good list of remedial measures Note 3: Measures undertaken by non-defendants (third parties) Rule doesn't say: "If after an event a defendant takes measure..." Rather is passive voice "If after an event, measures are taken..." Language of rule seems to make it apply to ANY actors, not just defendants.. but that's not the law... the law is what the cases say. Subsequent remedial measures undertaken by nondefendants are permissible. Theory is such a party will not be deterred by the admission of the evidence (public policy concerns now gone) Ex: Bike accident on trail, afterwards a nondefendant put up a sign forbidding bicycles on th...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online