[blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

Tue Nov 9 17:33:05 UTC 2021

In addition to the good suggestions already offered, if you have a student subscription to Westlaw or Lexis, pull the statute up and look at the "notes of decisions" and "context and analysis" tabs. I can only speak to the California version of the rule, Evidence Code sec. 1151, but when I pull up that section, the first heading in notes of decisions is public policy and the entry is a Cal. Supreme Court case which discusses the policy reasons at length. In the Context and analysis tab there are links to a number of state and federal treatises that have useful discussions. As a plaintiff personal injury litigator for the last 38 years I have dealt with this rule many times. I find the exceptions much more interesting and useful than the rule.

Brian
Brian C. Unitt
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
By the State Bar of California

Law Office of Brian C. Unitt
6185 Magnolia Ave, PMB 40
Riverside, CA 92506 
P: 951-682-7030
E: brianunitt at holsteinlaw.com

NOTICE:  This communication is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain attorney/client information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or by telephone and immediately delete this communication and all its attachments.

Confidentiality Disclaimer 
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. 
If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:41 AM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Lauren Bishop <laurenbishop96 at icloud.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Question about Florida Statute 90.407

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%40colum
>> bia.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%4
> 0icloud.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/brianunitt%40holsteinlaw.com