Evidence: 407 -411

Front 1

) A sues X when he falls in the store. A claims that the tape of the stairs was worn and should have been replaced. X calls B, store manager, to testify that tape was not worn, and that steps were not slippery. In rebuttal, A wants to introduce evidence that the tape was replaced one week after the accident, and wants to show photo of steps with new tape. Admissible?

Back 1

No, this is evidence of sebsequent remedial measure or precautions. the evidence is bieng used to prove negligence

Front 2

A sues X when he falls in the store. A claims that the tape of the stairs was worn and should have been replaced. X calls B, store manager, to testify that tape was not worn, and that steps were not slippery. In rebuttal, A wants to introduce evidence that the tape was replaced one week after the accident, and wants to show photo of steps with new tape
A adds proof of that B, store manager, was person who authorized installation of new abrasive tape after A’s accident

Back 2

Could be used to impeach
--Could be used to show that manager thought that old strips were slippery, since he authorized their replacement. This could be used to impeach him since he claimed that he thought that the old strips were ok
--Compare to doc case- differences --doc was testifying that he did the procedure in his best judgment at the time- a bit different than saying steps not slippery and worn

Front 3

P, a savings company, sues D a bank, for damages arising out of a long-period of embezzelment of $500,000 by M, a manager of P's branch office. From time to time, M placed the embezzeled funds in a personal account with D and then later made withdrawls by checks to herself until all the funds were withdrawn. P claims that D was negligent in permitting M to make deposits and withdrawls from this account. D's defense is that P was negligent in its accounting anf auditing procedures which allowed M to embezzle such a large amount w/o detection.

After the embezzlement P retained X, an accounting firm to audit P and recomend accounting and auditing changes. P placed such changes into effect after getting X's report. D makes a discovery motion to inspect and copy X's report. what result

Back 3

scope of discovery is broader than scope of permissable evidence.

Front 4

Tuer v. McDonald: After P died of heart attack, hospital changed protocol about Heparin

Holding?

Back 4

i)RULE: feasibility exception should be read narrowly to disallow evidence of subsequent remedial measures unless D has contended that the measures were not possible under the circumstances
--(here doc just said in his opinion) Doc said is just feasible just not advisable.



RULE: The impeachment exception should not be read expansively to allow evidence of subsequent remedial measures if D testified prior approach was safe.
--Sub measures just show that docs learned of a safer method, doesn’t mean that his stamement about his beliefs at the time of the incident were lies.

Front 5

What are the admissible and inadmissible uses of evidence of subsequent precautions?

Back 5

Inadmissible
(1) prove negligence
(2) prove other culpable conduct
(3) prove defect in product
(4) prove need for warning or instruction


Admissible
(1) Impeachment
(2) Show control
(3) show ownership
(4) shoe feasibility IF controverted

Front 6

Suppose C was on trial for bank robbery. Could prosecution use evidence of drug tests to contridict C's anwser to question if he knows what drugs look like?

Back 6

This would not be allowed because it is collateral, it does not go to an essential element of the case.

Front 7

B is accused of murdering her father. She calls minister to testify that she has reputation of being peaceable and non-violent. She testifies on her own behalf to alibi defense. Prosecution has evidence that within the past 5 years, B was convicted of the following offenses


(a) Petty larceny (misdemeanor punish by 6 months in jail) from incident involving shoplifting—she was caught leaving store with items concealed on her person; when questioned by personnel, she said that she bought the items at another store


(b) Disturbing the peace (misdemeanor 6 months): Threw plate at server

Back 7

(a) Conviction: no because not felony
false statement: would go under specific conduct allowed during cross to see character for truthfullness

(b) relevant because it goes to contradict misisters testimony that B is peacable.
because D opened the door to her character, the prosecution can bring in evidence of contrary character testimony. Can only inquire into this on cross, cannot bring in extrinsic evidence.