[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

[Laura Wolk]

Sorry if this is going to open a can of worms, but should we be using
the list to assist others in completing their homework?

On 11/9/21, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> That example was supposed to say June 9th and June 12th. Apologies.
>
>> On Nov 9, 2021, at 6:16 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart <sanho817 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissable to show negligence because
>> simply changing a product design, etcetera, doesn't conclusively
>> demonstrate that the company was legally at fault. Imagine that on June
>> 9th, someone is cut by their lawnmower. On June 2nd, and without even
>> knowing about the person's injury, the manufacturer changes the design of
>> the lawnmower so people are less likely to be injured by it in the future.
>> That doesn't automatically mean that our hypothetical person was injured
>> by the same supposed defect, or that the company was negligent in the
>> first place, or that the company can be held responsible for the person's
>> injury. It literally only means that the company changed their design
>> after the fact. You can use that evidence to show the feasibility of the
>> change, but not negligence necessitating that change.
>>
>> Let us know if you have any further questions. I could also send you my
>> accessible, searchable evidence materials if they would be helpful to you.
>>
>>
>> Warmth,
>> Sanho
>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2021, at 11:22 PM, Caleb E. Smith via BlindLaw
>>> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m still a lost student and no expert. So don’t put much stock in what
>>> I
>>> say. I’m assuming that what started happening was someone got accused of
>>> negligence. They then made a rule to make it even less likely that
>>> whatever
>>> happened would happen again. And then those changes got used against them
>>> and the person said see you made these changes so you’re showing that
>>> your
>>> rules were defective before this. And they’re just saying you can’t use
>>> those good faith efforts to improve later as evidence that the standards
>>> were bad in the first place.
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:29 PM Thomas Dukeman via BlindLaw <
>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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/ces2266%40columbia.edu
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/sanho817%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/laura.wolk%40gmail.com
>