Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Beware of Judicial Exceptions to Federal Rule of Evidence 407

By Alan D. Kaplan and Christopher P. Greeley
May 26, 2005

As you prepare for your upcoming product liability trial, things could not seem any better. You have qualified experts waiting to testify that your client's product is not defective. The client is credible, well established, clearly safety conscious and responsible. Throughout lengthy pretrial depositions, your client has never denied ownership or control of the product, and never claimed that purported safety measures suggested by the plaintiff were not feasible. He claims only that the measures would have been inconsequential based on the facts of the case. Therefore, it is your impression that the warning label your client added to the “Super Widget” subsequent to the accident will never be presented to the jury based on the protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 407, a conclusion the judge will surely come to as she flips through your motion in limine. In pertinent part, the Rule states that:

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction.

What then could possibly be the basis for your opponent's opposition papers that have now landed on your desk?

Rule 407 provides a handful of statutory exceptions to keep defendants from using the rule as both a sword and a shield. The Rule permits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when they are presented for uses “such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.” Wright & Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure '5289, at 145 (1980) (“it is doubtful that the plaintiff, at common law, could have called the defendant to the stand, asked him if he thought he had been negligent, and impeach[ ] him with evidence of subsequent repairs if he answered 'no.'”). While FRE 407 has, generally speaking, secured the front door against the admission of subsequent remedial measures, several judicially created exceptions have opened windows that plaintiffs are using to present this evidence to a jury. With the strong public policy of encouraging remediation in mind, certain factual situations, which do not fit neatly within that policy, have become the basis for these exceptions.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.