Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Holding ds did affirmatively controvert the

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: n unknown assailant forcibly entered the room and assaulted and raped her. Procedural Posture: P's filed suit alleging that the Ds negligently failed to provide them with reasonably safe lodging. During trial, district court refused to admit evidence that, after Linda Anderson was raped, the D's installed safety chains and "peep holes" in the entrance doors of the motel rooms. Claimed that FRE 407 generally prohibits admission of such evidence. P's assert on appeal that the Ds controverted the feasibility of the use of peep holes and safety chains and therefore the evidence comes within the feasibility exception of Rule 407. Issue: Was the feasibility of peep holes and safety chains sufficiently controverted by the D's so as to allow P to bring in evidence of the subsequent remedial measures to prove feasibility? Holding: Ds did affirmatively controvert the feasibility of the chain locks and peep holes. Trial court committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion when it excluded the evidence. o "Whether something is feasible r...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online