Subsequent Remedial Measures
-When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, EV of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
*negligence, *culpable conduct, * defect in a product or its design; *need for a warning or instruction.
But court may admit this EV for another purpose, such as impeachment or- if disputed-proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precaut. measures
§ Somecourts say no, others say that self-critical analysis CAN be treated as asubsequent remedial measure even if no action is taken on their analysis (akano ‘measure’ taken)
remedial measures engaged in PRIORto the injury?
courts are SPLIT:
· Some say 407 doesn’t exclude this via language
· Some say policy would exclude it
Courts are SPLIT
o Some say when a third party engages in remedialmeasure, 407 doesn’t apply
o Others say 407 should apply to any remedialmeasure, regardless of party
Rule 408. Compromise Offers andNegotiations
· (a)Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf ofany party — either to prove or disprovethe validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1)furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, oroffering to accept — a valuable considerationin compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
Sign up for free and study better.
Get started today!