[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

Tue Nov 9 15:41:19 UTC 2021

Good morning:

Not by providing answers, but perhaps by providing guidance on. Accessible means to  research the topic.

Luis

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Laura Wolk via BlindLaw
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 7:39 AM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Laura Wolk <laura.wolk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

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%40col
>>>> umbia.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%40gma
>>> il.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%40gma
> il.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/lmendez716%40gmail.com