[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

Tue Nov 9 16:46:32 UTC 2021

Sure.  But that's not what the ask was.  The ask was "I don’t know
that much about this topic and would appreciate it if someone could
help better explain it to me."

On 11/9/21, lmendez716 at gmail.com <lmendez716 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>