[brief] In support of that assertion, the defense relied on the expert testimony of a forensic engineer, [...].  A fundamental element in plaintiff-appellant’s burden to prove the respondent’s negligence (Question 1 of the Verdict Sheet) (Pa49 - Pa50), was to establish the hazardous conditions that existed at the time and location of her fall.  The testimony from appellant and [...] as to the fall, pictures of the scene and the bruises to her body, (Pa22 - Pa30), and the testimony of her treating physician, [...], as to the cause and nature of her injuries, were consistent with the fact that she slipped in a pool of water, falling hard on a concrete floor.  In addition there was substantial other evidence in plaintiff’s possession that the court would not permit to be introduced.  Plaintiff-Appellant acquired in response to her request of defendant-respondent for Answers to Interrogatories, two photographs taken by the respondent immediately after the fall depicting the result of its attempt to mop the area, the prominent placement of a bright yellow sign specifically warning of a slip and fall hazard, as well as the defendant-respondent’s Incident Report that confirmed important details about the incident as testified to by the appellant and her friend, [...].  (Pa33 - Pa37).  The plaintiff-appellant was denied the opportunity to introduce through the testimony of [...] and [...] the actions of the defendant-respondent’s on-site manager, [...], who immediately after plaintiff’s fall mopped the area and placed the warning sign, evidencing the respondent’s belief that the high-traffic area floor was indeed slippery and dangerous when wet.  The trial court ruled that the actions constituted subsequent remedial measures by the defendant-respondent under Evid. R. 407, prejudicial to the defense under Evid. R. 403, and the court was not satisfied that there was a sufficient basis to allow the evidence in or to be commented upon in any manner at trial in plaintiff’s case in chief or in cross-examination of the defendant’s engineering expert.  Similarly excluded, were the two color photographs that Ms. McLaughlin had taken moments after plaintiff-appellant’s fall and which were provided in discovery and depicted the mopped area and the warning sign.  The significance of these rulings and the prejudice to appellant’s case caused by the exclusion of this evidence cannot be overstated.  (See Legal Argument, Point I).  Further limiting plaintiff’s proofs, the trial court also ruled that the respondent’s incident report, prepared by the respondent’s agent, [...], and provided and certified to in its Answers to Interrogatories, could not be used or admitted into evidence without a defense witness being called by the plaintiff-appellant at trial to authenticate it.  (See Legal Argument, Point II).  It is respectfully submitted that the trial court’s rulings were so egregious and contrary to established case law, the Rules of Evidence, and the NJ Court Rules, and precluded the admission of truthful, highly relevant and important evidence, that the rulings struck at the heart of the Plaintiff’s case and were “clearly capable of producing an unjust result” (R. 2:10-2) requiring that the judgment be set aside and a new trial ordered.