17. Is evidence of this change in design admissible?

A plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a slicing machine for negligent design, after the machine cut off the plaintiff's finger. The plaintiff claims that while he was cleaning the machine, two wires came into contact with each other and caused the machine to turn on. At trial, the manufacturer has offered evidence that it was unreasonably expensive to design the machine so that the wires could not come into contact. In rebuttal, the plaintiff offers evidence that after this action was filed, the manufacturer redesigned the machine to prevent the wires from coming into contact.

No, because the change in design may have been unrelated to this type of accident
No, under the rule regarding remedial measures that encourages manufacturers to make their products safer
Yes, as evidence tending to show that the machine could be designed to keep the wires from coming into contact
Yes, as evidence tending to show that the manufacturer was negligent because its initial design failed to prevent the wires from coming into contact

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 407, evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. The purpose of this Rule is to encourage people to make such repairs. However, such evidence may still be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, rebutting a claim that the precaution was not feasible. Specifically, evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an accident is admissible to establish the feasibility of precautionary measures when such feasibility is disputed.

C is correct. Although evidence of the design change offered to prove negligence will be excluded, this evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proof of ownership, control, the feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment. In this case, the design change shows that the machine could have been designed to keep the wires from coming into contact, and therefore, would be admissible to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures.

A is incorrect. It does not matter that the design change was not related to the accident. The design change still shows that the machine could have been designed to keep the wires from coming into contact, and therefore, would be admissible to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures.

B is incorrect. Subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence, a culpable product, a defect, or a need for a warning. It is true that this is based on a policy not to discourage people from taking steps to improve safety. However, as stated above, the measure may be admissible if offered for another purpose.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Subsequent remedial measures are specifically not admissible to prove negligence. However, the change in design is admissible to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

17. Is evidence of this change in design admissible?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired