Character evidence, other acts, and habit — MCQs

A delivery driver sued a warehouse owner after a loading-platform railing collapsed. Two days after the accident, the owner replaced the railing and added warning signs. At trial, the owner denies owning the platform and contends that a neighboring business controlled it. The driver offers the owner's work order directing employees to replace "our damaged platform railing." The driver states that the work order is offered only to prove ownership and control, not negligence or culpable conduct. The owner objects that evidence of repairs made after an accident is inadmissible. Which of the following best states how the court should rule?

A pedestrian sued a delivery company after one of its vans struck her in a crosswalk. The company disputes whether the pedestrian entered the crosswalk against the signal. The pedestrian offers testimony from a traffic engineer that, during an inspection conducted two weeks after the collision at the same time of day, a tree partially blocked drivers’ view of the pedestrian signal. Weather records show that there had been no storm or pruning between the collision and inspection, and photographs taken on both dates show the tree in substantially the same condition. The company objects that the inspection occurred after the collision and that the testimony may cause jurors to decide the case based on a different event. The pedestrian offers the testimony to show what the driver could see when approaching the crosswalk. Is the court likely to admit the testimony?

A factory worker brought a negligence action against a press manufacturer after the press crushed his hand. The worker claims that the press should have included a fixed barrier preventing an operator's hand from reaching the compression area. After the accident, the manufacturer added such a barrier to newly produced presses. Before trial, the manufacturer's expert testified that adding a fixed barrier to this model was not technically feasible because it would prevent operators from positioning materials. The worker seeks to introduce evidence of the post-accident design change solely to rebut that testimony. The manufacturer objects that the change is a subsequent remedial measure and that the jury might misuse it as proof of negligence. Is the court likely to admit the evidence?

A factory worker brought a negligence action against an equipment leasing company after the worker's hand passed through an opening beside a blade on a machine the leasing company had supplied and serviced. Two months after the accident, the leasing company added a wider guard to the machine. The worker proposes to introduce evidence of that change. The leasing company disputes that it had control over maintaining the machine at the time of the accident, contending that the factory owner alone was responsible for its upkeep. The worker argues that the evidence should be admitted specifically to establish control. Which of the following best states how the court should rule?

A pedestrian sued a grocery store in federal court after tripping over an unguarded loading-ramp edge. The pedestrian alleges that the store negligently failed to install a protective railing. At trial, the store's facilities director testifies that the store did not own or control the loading ramp because that portion of the property had been leased to an independent contractor responsible for its maintenance. The pedestrian then offers evidence that, one week after the accident, the store's own maintenance crew installed a protective railing on the ramp. The pedestrian offers the evidence only to rebut the director's assertion that the store lacked control over the ramp. The store objects under the rule excluding subsequent remedial measures. Which of the following is the court's most appropriate ruling?

A factory worker brought a products-liability action against the manufacturer of a conveyor belt system after the worker's arm was caught in an unguarded pinch point. The worker alleges that the system was defectively designed because a readily available guard could have prevented the injury. At trial, the manufacturer's plant supervisor testified, "We never even considered adding a guard to that pinch point because we didn't think one was necessary." The worker then offered evidence that, one month after the accident, the manufacturer added a guard over the pinch point on the same model of conveyor system. The manufacturer objected. The worker stated that the evidence was offered only to impeach the supervisor's testimony that a guard had never been considered, not to prove negligence or a defective design. How should the court rule?

A warehouse worker brought a federal products-liability action against a forklift manufacturer after being struck when the forklift backed over his foot. The worker alleged that the forklift should have included a rear-facing camera system to alert operators to obstacles behind the vehicle. During discovery, the manufacturer asserted that such a camera system could not be reliably installed given the dust and vibration present in typical warehouse environments. Three months after the accident, the manufacturer began selling the same forklift model equipped with a rear-facing camera system rated for dusty, high-vibration conditions. The worker offers the redesigned camera system solely to rebut the manufacturer's feasibility assertion. The manufacturer objects that the redesign was a subsequent remedial measure and also argues that displaying it would unfairly prejudice the jury. Which of the following is the strongest response to the objection?

A customer sued a grocery store after slipping and falling on a wet floor in the produce aisle. The customer alleges that the store's flooring was unreasonably slippery. Two days after the fall, before any government investigation, the store replaced the flooring throughout the entire building with a non-slip surface. At trial, the store disputes both negligence and whether it controlled the produce aisle at the time of the fall but does not dispute that safer, non-slip flooring was technologically feasible. The customer offers evidence of the flooring replacement to prove that the original floor was unreasonably dangerous. The store objects. Which of the following best states how the court should rule?