Overview
This lecture discusses the rule of evidence excluding subsequent remedial measures, highlighting its purpose in encouraging safety improvements while preventing their use to prove liability in court.
Exclusion of Reliable Evidence for Policy Reasons
- Certain reliable evidence is excluded by law to discourage undesirable behavior and promote positive conduct.
- Parallel to the exclusionary rule in criminal procedure, where unlawfully obtained evidence is excluded to prevent illegal police searches.
- The goal is to balance societal benefits (like encouraging repairs) against potentially losing relevant evidence in litigation.
Subsequent Remedial Measures Rule
- After an incident, if a party makes repairs or improvements to prevent future harm, evidence of these actions is generally inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.
- Example: An ice cream parlor repairs a sidewalk after someone trips; that repair cannot be used as evidence of previous negligence.
- The law sacrifices potentially helpful evidence to avoid discouraging timely repairs and promote public safety.
Exceptions and Permitted Uses
- Evidence of subsequent remedial measures may be admitted for other purposes, such as impeachment, proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures.
- For instance, if a business claims it lacks control over property but later makes repairs, such evidence can show control.
- If feasibility of repairs is challenged, subsequent measures can rebut impracticality claims.
Federal and California Rules Comparison
- Federal Rule: Excludes subsequent remedial measures as evidence of negligence or culpable conduct, with exceptions for specific issues.
- California Evidence Code Section 1151: Mirrors the federal approach in wording and application, relevant for upcoming California cases.
Application and Case Discussion
- Upcoming cases will illustrate the application of this rule and its exceptions, starting with foundational principles and moving to more nuanced scenarios.