Relevance and exclusion of evidence

Answer: A. Exclude the evidence because it is offered to prove culpable conduct through a subsequent remedial measure.

Exclude the evidence because it is offered to prove culpable conduct through a subsequent remedial measure. - Replacing the flooring after the fall with a non-slip surface is a subsequent remedial measure because it could have made the fall less likely. - The customer offers it to prove the original floor was unreasonably dangerous, a use Rule 407 prohibits. Admit the evidence because replacing the flooring tends to show that the earlier floor caused the fall. - The replacement may support an inference about the earlier floor, but the customer offers that inference to prove the store’s culpable conduct. - Its relevance does not overcome Rule 407’s exclusion for that purpose. Admit the evidence because the store disputes control of the aisle where the fall occurred. - Control is disputed, and Rule 407 can permit remedial-measure evidence offered to prove control. - The customer instead offers the replacement to prove the original floor was unreasonably dangerous, so that exception does not justify admission for the stated purpose. Exclude the evidence under Rule 403 because remedial measures have no permissible evidentiary use. - Rule 407, not a conclusion that the evidence has no permissible use, governs the customer’s stated offer. - A subsequent measure may be admissible for another disputed purpose, such as control, even though it cannot be used here to prove culpable conduct.

Answer: B. Admit the work order because ownership or control is disputed and the evidence is offered for that permitted purpose.

Admit the work order because ownership or control is disputed and the evidence is offered for that permitted purpose. - Rule 407 permits evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to prove ownership or control when that issue is disputed. - The owner denies controlling the platform, and the work order’s reference to “our damaged platform railing” bears on that dispute; the court may limit the jury to that use. Exclude the work order because evidence of a subsequent repair is inadmissible for every purpose. - Rule 407 does not bar subsequent-repair evidence for every purpose. - Because the owner disputes ownership and control, the driver may offer the work order on those issues rather than to prove negligence. Exclude the work order unless the driver first proves that the owner acted negligently before making the repair. - Rule 407 imposes no requirement that the driver first prove negligence to use the work order for disputed control. - The driver’s stated purpose is to show who controlled the platform, not whether the owner acted negligently. Admit the work order as proof that the original railing was defective because the repair acknowledges the defect. - Rule 407 does not permit the driver to use the replacement as proof that the original railing was defective. - The work order may be considered for disputed ownership or control, but the repair cannot be treated as an admission of liability.

Answer: B. Admit the evidence for the limited purpose of proving feasibility because the store has disputed whether a sturdier bracket was feasible.

Admit the evidence for the limited purpose of proving feasibility because the store has disputed whether a sturdier bracket was feasible. - Federal Rule of Evidence 407 permits evidence of a subsequent remedial measure to prove feasibility when feasibility is disputed, as the store has done here. - The jury may consider the installation for that limited purpose, though the bracket’s being newly available means its later installation does not, by itself, establish availability when the shelf was installed. Exclude the evidence because a post-accident safety measure cannot be admitted for any purpose in a negligence action. - Rule 407 is not an absolute bar: it allows a subsequent measure to prove disputed feasibility. - The shopper offers the storewide bracket installation solely for that permitted purpose, not to prove negligence. Admit the evidence as substantive proof that the original bracket was defective because the installation makes that conclusion more probable. - Rule 407 prohibits using the later installation as proof of defect in the original bracket. - Admitting the evidence for disputed feasibility does not permit the jury to infer defect merely because the store later reinforced its shelves. Exclude the evidence because feasibility is relevant only when ownership or control of the instrumentality is also disputed. - Feasibility and control are separate permissible purposes under Rule 407; both need not be disputed. - The store’s undisputed control of the shelf therefore does not foreclose the shopper’s feasibility argument.

Answer: A. Yes, because the inspection conditions were shown to be substantially similar, and the testimony is probative of the driver’s ability to see the signal.

Yes, because the inspection conditions were shown to be substantially similar, and the testimony is probative of the driver’s ability to see the signal. - The engineer’s observation is probative of visibility because the photographs show the tree in substantially the same condition on the collision and inspection dates. - The absence of storms or pruning supports admitting the later observation; the two-week gap goes to its weight. Yes, because relevant evidence cannot be excluded merely because it may influence the jury’s assessment of a disputed fact. - The testimony is relevant because it helps establish what the driver could see when approaching the crosswalk. - But relevant evidence can be excluded under Rule 403 if a qualifying danger substantially outweighs its probative value. No, because observations made after an accident are inadmissible unless the opposing party attended the inspection. - The company’s attendance is not a prerequisite to admitting the engineer’s observations. - The pertinent question is whether conditions at the later inspection were sufficiently similar to those at the collision. No, because the later inspection creates unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value. - Jurors drawing an inference about visibility from the engineer’s testimony is its proper evidentiary use, not unfair prejudice. - The substantially unchanged tree supports probative value, and the record identifies no Rule 403 danger that substantially outweighs it.

Answer: A. Yes, because the manufacturer disputed feasibility and the court may give a limiting instruction restricting the jury's use of the evidence.

Yes, because the manufacturer disputed feasibility and the court may give a limiting instruction restricting the jury's use of the evidence. - Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, a subsequent design change may be admitted to prove feasibility when feasibility is disputed; the manufacturer’s expert testified that a fixed barrier would prevent operators from positioning materials. - The court may give a limiting instruction allowing the jury to consider the new barrier on feasibility, but not as proof that the manufacturer was negligent. Yes, because subsequent remedial measures are excluded only when undertaken by someone other than the defendant. - Rule 407 generally restricts the use of a defendant’s subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence; it does not apply only to measures taken by someone else. - The manufacturer’s change may be admitted here because its expert disputed feasibility, not because the manufacturer was exempt from the rule. No, because a subsequent design change is inadmissible for every purpose when it could suggest earlier negligence. - Rule 407 does not bar a subsequent remedial measure for every purpose merely because a jury might also view it as evidence of negligence. - The worker offers the added barrier solely to rebut the expert’s claim that such a barrier was not technically feasible, a permitted purpose when feasibility is disputed. No, because feasibility evidence is admissible only if the manufacturer expressly stipulated that the original design was unsafe. - A stipulation that the original design was unsafe is not required to admit a subsequent measure to prove disputed feasibility. - The expert’s testimony that a fixed barrier would interfere with positioning materials itself placed feasibility in dispute.

Answer: A. Admit the evidence to show that the leasing company had control over the machine because the leasing company disputes control.

Admit the evidence to show that the leasing company had control over the machine because the leasing company disputes control. - Adding a wider guard two months later was a subsequent remedial measure, but Rule 407 permits such evidence to prove control when control is disputed. - Because the leasing company denies responsibility for maintaining the machine at the time of the accident, its later alteration is relevant to control, not proof of negligence. Admit the evidence to prove that the leasing company was negligent because the replacement reduced the risk. - A wider guard may have reduced the risk of a hand reaching the blade, but Rule 407 bars using the later change to prove negligence. - The worker’s stated purpose—establishing disputed control—is what makes the evidence admissible. Exclude the evidence because post-accident remedial measures are inadmissible for every purpose. - Rule 407 does not impose an absolute bar: a subsequent remedial measure may be admitted to prove control when that issue is disputed. - The leasing company’s claim that the factory owner alone handled upkeep makes that exception applicable here. Exclude the evidence because control is irrelevant whenever a plaintiff alleges negligent maintenance. - Control matters to a negligent-maintenance claim because it bears on who was responsible for maintaining the machine. - The leasing company expressly disputes that responsibility, so its addition of the guard has a permissible evidentiary purpose.

Answer: C. Admit the evidence for the limited purpose of proving control because the store placed control in dispute.

Admit the evidence for the limited purpose of proving control because the store placed control in dispute. - Federal Rule of Evidence 407 permits a subsequent remedial measure to prove control when control is disputed, and the facilities director denied that the store controlled the ramp. - The store’s own crew installed the railing, making that work relevant to control; if requested, the court should instruct the jury to consider it only for that purpose. Exclude the evidence because subsequent remedial measures cannot be admitted for any purpose in a negligence action. - Rule 407 bars using the later railing installation to prove negligence, but it does not bar every use of that evidence. - The pedestrian offers the crew’s work to rebut the director’s denial of control, a permitted use. Exclude the evidence because control is relevant only if the store expressly concedes that it controlled the ramp. - The director’s testimony that an independent contractor controlled the ramp disputes control rather than conceding it. - That dispute is why the store’s subsequent installation of a railing can be considered as evidence of control. Admit the evidence as substantive proof that the store was negligent because the later repair establishes the applicable standard of care. - Rule 407 prohibits using the later railing installation as proof that the store acted negligently before the accident. - The crew’s work may bear on who controlled the ramp, but it does not establish the applicable standard of care.

Answer: A. Admit the evidence because it may be used to impeach the supervisor's testimony that a guard was never considered.

Admit the evidence because it may be used to impeach the supervisor's testimony that a guard was never considered. - The supervisor’s categorical statement that the manufacturer never considered a guard is open to impeachment with evidence that the manufacturer later added one to the same model. - The court may admit the later change for that limited impeachment purpose, not as proof that the earlier design was defective. Admit the evidence because post-accident design changes are substantive proof that the earlier design was defective. - Under the subsequent-remedial-measures rule, adding a guard after the accident cannot be used to prove a product defect. - The worker offered the change to challenge the supervisor’s testimony, not as substantive proof that the unguarded pinch point was defective. Exclude the evidence because a later safety measure cannot be used for any purpose in a products-liability action. - The rule is not an absolute bar: a subsequent measure may be admitted for a permitted purpose such as impeachment. - Here, the worker identified the supervisor’s statement that a guard was never considered as the testimony to be impeached. Exclude the evidence because later design changes are privileged communications prepared in anticipation of litigation. - Adding a guard is a design change, not a privileged communication. - Nothing in the facts establishes that evidence of the change was prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Answer: C. The camera system is admissible to address feasibility because the manufacturer disputed that a workable camera system could be installed.

The camera system is admissible to address feasibility because the manufacturer disputed that a workable camera system could be installed. - Federal Rule of Evidence 407 permits a subsequent remedial measure to show feasibility when feasibility is disputed, and the manufacturer claimed a camera could not work reliably in dusty, high-vibration warehouses. - The later camera system addresses that claim; the court must still weigh its probative value against any risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. The camera system is inadmissible because post-accident safety changes cannot be used for any purpose. - Rule 407 does not impose an absolute bar: it permits evidence of a later change to show disputed feasibility. - The manufacturer's assertion that a reliable camera could not be installed makes that permitted purpose relevant here. The camera system is admissible because later safety changes are direct evidence that the original forklift was defective. - Rule 407 bars using the post-accident redesign to prove a product defect directly. - The worker instead offers the camera system solely to rebut the manufacturer's claim that installing a workable system was infeasible. The camera system is inadmissible unless the worker first proves that the manufacturer controlled the warehouse after the accident. - Control of the warehouse is not a prerequisite to admitting evidence that the manufacturer later sold the same forklift model with a camera. - The disputed issue is whether such a system could work under warehouse conditions, not who controlled the warehouse after the accident.