Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

When after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an

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: ered it as habit....curious, court should have just considered that theory...a new trial is absurd! If there is a way to get this in, tell us, and affirm the damn thing! Plaintiff's dead. Perrin v. Anderson ...Holding was wrong Habit is a word we use in different means; she has a habit of going out every night....(that's character...not really habit, has to be habit in the strict sense as discussed in the Weil v. Seitzer case) Read this case (or at least the abstract)!!! even if 404(2)(a) did apply, limited to reputation or opinion, not specific instances Appeals court got the first question wrong but the second point right- if you can use this type of evidence (which you can't), no specific instances Subsequent Remedial Measures [FRE 407] FRE 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures. When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This...
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