[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407
Singh, Nandini
NSingh at cov.com
Mon Nov 8 21:40:50 UTC 2021
As I recall and just now checked at this link<https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/subsequent-remedial-measures-the-misunderstood-rule-of-evidence/>, the rule is informed by public policy. We want to promote the idea that people/companies should be able to make things safer without then using that move to safety as a way to demonstrate negligence.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Dukeman via BlindLaw
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 4:29 PM
To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Thomas Dukeman <ThomasDukeman at outlook.com>
Subject: [blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407
[EXTERNAL]
Hello there fellow legal beagles!
I have some trouble understanding the statute. My professor for my evidence and trial procedure class wants me to explain in a paragraph why remedial measures taken by someone not be admissible in court to prove negligence? For those unfamiliar with the statute, here is a copy:
90.407 Subsequent remedial measures.—Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by an event, which measures if taken before the event would have made injury or harm less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence, the existence of a product defect, or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
My main source of confusion comes from the first line of the statute:
Subsequent remedial measures.—Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by an event, which measures if taken before the event would have made injury or harm less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence,
Specifically the “evidence of means taken AFTER an injury or harm caused” part. I thought negligence is anything that could have been done before harm occurred to prevent it from occurring but someone allowed it to happen anyway? The fact that the designer or manufacturer attempted to fix it AFTER harm has occurred proof that negligence has occurred? If so, why would there be a statute preventing such evidence from being entered for a case on which the whole of the case centers around its very proof of or disproof of existence be denied from being admitted into court?
I don’t know that much about this topic and would appreciate it if someone could help better explain it to me,
Thanks for the assist!
Tom
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/nsingh%40cov.com
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list