This is an extract of our Other Forbidden Inferences document, which we sell as part of our Evidence Outlines collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
OTHER FORBIDDEN INFERENCES Rationale: CL's (and then FRE drafters') assessment that the Rule 403 balance categorically should result in exclusion for all of these types of evidence.
-SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES [FRE 407]
Rationale: avoiding discouragement of remedial measures, and juries overvalue bc of hindsight bias. World just gets wiser as it gets older. 0) Remedial measure taken by a party (caselaw gloss on rule based on its rationale). NO=>if remedial measure taken by a non-party, 407 doesn't block admissibility. Diehl: suing manufacturer for defective road-widening machine. After the accident, the road-building company made modifications to the machine (backup alarm, bumper, etc). Admissible against the defendant manufacturer. Road-builder wasn't a party. 1) Remedial measure taken that would've made the injury/harm at issue in the present lawsuit less likely. NO=>407 doesn't block admissibility. 2) Remedial measure taken after the injury/harms that are the subject of the present lawsuit NO=>407 doesn't block admissibility of measures taken before the incident. Ex: Plf bought product in 2012. Redesign in 2013. Accident in 2014. Plf not barred by 407, the redesign predated the accident. 3) Valid reason for admitting the evidence?
NOT Def's fault: negligence, culpable conduct, or defective product/warning Examples of valid reasons:
-Impeachment Ex: 'we couldn't have made a safer table saw' impeach w/
subsequent remedial measure
-If disputed - Proof of ownership
-If disputed - Proof of control
-If disputed - Feasibility of precautionary/remedial measures
-dispute whether it was technologically/scientifically feasible.
-dispute whether it was economically feasible 4) REVERSE 403 Balancing Does probative value of controverted other purpose substantially outweigh the dangers (like using the evidence to show D's culpable conduct)?
YES=>admissible. (Def should get limiting instruction though).
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outlines.