SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES (RULE 407)

1. On September 1, 2000, Jones tripped and fell while shopping at his local Safeway store. Jones, who suffered serious injuries, later sued Safeway, claiming that his fall was caused by Safeway's negligent maintenance of its premises. Safeway's answer admitted that Jones fell in its store but denied that it was negligent. At trial, Jones offers evidence that on September 3, 2000, Safeway repaired a crack in the linoleum at the spot where Jones had tripped. Safeway objects to the introduction of this evidence under FRE 407. Should the court sustain Safeway's objection?

2. What is the rationale for FRE 407?

3. On June 1, 2000, Dauber purchased a new Honda "Gold Wing" motorcycle. On August 1, 2000, Dauber was riding his motorcycle at between 50 and 70 mph. The motorcycle began to wobble, shot off the road, and crashed, seriously injuring Dauber. Dauber then sued the Honda Motor Company, the manufacturer of the motorcycle, alleging that the wobble was caused by a design defect in the motorcycle. At trial, Dauber calls as his first witness a former Honda employee to testify that on October 15, 2000, Honda began to make the struts that connected the handlebars to the front wheels of its Gold Wing motorcycles two millimeters thicker, in an effort to reduce wobble; the witness also will testify that this change was made pursuant to plans that had been formulated in July of 2000. Honda objects to this testimony, citing FRE 407. Should the court sustain Honda's objection?

4. Same facts as in Question 3, except that the former Honda employee will testify that Honda began to make the struts on its Gold Wing motorcycles thicker as of June 15, 2000 (in response to reports that previously manufactured motorcycles had been subject to wobble). Now should the court sustain Honda's objection?

5. In Aarfy v. Bologna Mfg. Co., the plaintiff is a mine worker who was injured when his arm became caught in a $20,000 mining machine called a "grinder." Aarfy claims that the machine, which was manufactured by Bologna, was defectively designed. Aarfy has evidence that one month after his accident, Bologna added a shield (costing $20) to its "grinders" to make it more difficult for foreign objects (like arms) to get caught in the machine. How could Aarfy examine Milo Minderbinder, Bologna's President, to bring out the post-accident design change (or to get something just about as good, from Aarfy's point of view, out of Minderbinder)? [See FRE 407.]

SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES (RULE 407)

1. On September 1, 2000, Jones tripped and fell while shopping at his local Safeway store. Jones, who suffered serious injuries, later sued Safeway, claiming that his fall was caused by Safeway's negligent maintenance of its premises. Safeway's answer admitted that Jones fell in its store but denied that it was negligent. At trial, Jones offers evidence that on September 3, 2000, Safeway repaired a crack in the linoleum at the spot where Jones had tripped. Safeway objects to the introduction of this evidence under FRE 407. Should the court sustain Safeway's objection?

2. What is the rationale for FRE 407?

3. On June 1, 2000, Dauber purchased a new Honda "Gold Wing" motorcycle. On August 1, 2000, Dauber was riding his motorcycle at between 50 and 70 mph. The motorcycle began to wobble, shot off the road, and crashed, seriously injuring Dauber. Dauber then sued the Honda Motor Company, the manufacturer of the motorcycle, alleging that the wobble was caused by a design defect in the motorcycle. At trial, Dauber calls as his first witness a former Honda employee to testify that on October 15, 2000, Honda began to make the struts that connected the handlebars to the front wheels of its Gold Wing motorcycles two millimeters thicker, in an effort to reduce wobble; the witness also will testify that this change was made pursuant to plans that had been formulated in July of 2000. Honda objects to this testimony, citing FRE 407. Should the court sustain Honda's objection?

4. Same facts as in Question 3, except that the former Honda employee will testify that Honda began to make the struts on its Gold Wing motorcycles thicker as of June 15, 2000 (in response to reports that previously manufactured motorcycles had been subject to wobble). Now should the court sustain Honda's objection?

5. In Aarfy v. Bologna Mfg. Co., the plaintiff is a mine worker who was injured when his arm became caught in a $20,000 mining machine called a "grinder." Aarfy claims that the machine, which was manufactured by Bologna, was defectively designed. Aarfy has evidence that one month after his accident, Bologna added a shield (costing $20) to its "grinders" to make it more difficult for foreign objects (like arms) to get caught in the machine. How could Aarfy examine Milo Minderbinder, Bologna's President, to bring out the post-accident design change (or to get something just about as good, from Aarfy's point of view, out of Minderbinder)? [See FRE 407.]

SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES (RULE 407)

1. On September 1, 2000, Jones tripped and fell while shopping at his local Safeway store. Jones, who suffered serious injuries, later sued Safeway, claiming that his fall was caused by Safeway's negligent maintenance of its premises. Safeway's answer admitted that Jones fell in its store but denied that it was negligent. At trial, Jones offers evidence that on September 3, 2000, Safeway repaired a crack in the linoleum at the spot where Jones had tripped. Safeway objects to the introduction of this evidence under FRE 407. Should the court sustain Safeway's objection?

2. What is the rationale for FRE 407?

3. On June 1, 2000, Dauber purchased a new Honda "Gold Wing" motorcycle. On August 1, 2000, Dauber was riding his motorcycle at between 50 and 70 mph. The motorcycle began to wobble, shot off the road, and crashed, seriously injuring Dauber. Dauber then sued the Honda Motor Company, the manufacturer of the motorcycle, alleging that the wobble was caused by a design defect in the motorcycle. At trial, Dauber calls as his first witness a former Honda employee to testify that on October 15, 2000, Honda began to make the struts that connected the handlebars to the front wheels of its Gold Wing motorcycles two millimeters thicker, in an effort to reduce wobble; the witness also will testify that this change was made pursuant to plans that had been formulated in July of 2000. Honda objects to this testimony, citing FRE 407. Should the court sustain Honda's objection?

4. Same facts as in Question 3, except that the former Honda employee will testify that Honda began to make the struts on its Gold Wing motorcycles thicker as of June 15, 2000 (in response to reports that previously manufactured motorcycles had been subject to wobble). Now should the court sustain Honda's objection?

5. In Aarfy v. Bologna Mfg. Co., the plaintiff is a mine worker who was injured when his arm became caught in a $20,000 mining machine called a "grinder." Aarfy claims that the machine, which was manufactured by Bologna, was defectively designed. Aarfy has evidence that one month after his accident, Bologna added a shield (costing $20) to its "grinders" to make it more difficult for foreign objects (like arms) to get caught in the machine. How could Aarfy examine Milo Minderbinder, Bologna's President, to bring out the post-accident design change (or to get something just about as good, from Aarfy's point of view, out of Minderbinder)? [See FRE 407.]