[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

[Lauren Bishop]

Hi Tom,
I would strongly suggest meeting with your professor, a teachers assistant, or a peer to review this material so that you can understand it better.   Also, if there is language in the statute that you don’t know the definitions of, it is wise to look them up on Google  From your message it seems like you are looking to us for the answer; however, this method of solving your problems is it going to make you successful in the legal field. Furthermore, I could likely say that none of us are in your class; therefore, we could be leading you completely astray. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 9, 2021, at 12:22 AM, 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/laurenbishop96%40icloud.com