Opinion ID: 495443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures

Text: 44 Lyons objected to the district court's exclusion of three pieces of evidence: (1) photographs of the C.C. RIDER taken after the installation of an additional handrail; (2) testimony by a Kerr-McGee supervisor regarding whether a handrail was added to the C.C. RIDER after the accident; (3) the testimony by a co-owner of Ma-Ju regarding its post-accident addition of a handrail to the C.C. RIDER (see note 10 and accompanying text, supra ). 45 Our holding that as a matter of law Kerr-McGee had no duty to correct conditions on the C.C. RIDER's deck disposes of the argument that the evidence should have been admitted to prove control. As we stated earlier, the fact that Kerr-McGee may have had the economic leverage to, as a practical matter, extract changes in the vessel's deck does not alter our holding that it had no duty to do so. Even with the complained of excluded evidence, Lyons' section 5(b) case against Kerr-McGee would still have been fatally deficient. 13 Accordingly, as to Kerr-McGee, Lyons presents no ground for reversal in respect to these evidentiary rulings. 46 As to Ma-Ju's negligence, the evidence was clearly inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 407. 14 We also observe that the defendants stipulated as to the feasibility. 47 Lyons argues that the evidence was admissible to impeach the testimony of Kerr-McGee's supervisor, LeBlanc, that he considered the C.C. RIDER safe. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence for this purpose. LeBlanc was initially called as a witness by Lyons under the adverse witness rule and admitted that in a Kerr-McGee form accident report which he filled out concerning the incident he wrote, install hand rails on steps and no-skid surface on each step in the blank introduced by the words briefly state your opinion as to what action if any could prevent recurrence of similar incidents. 15 After LeBlanc admitted this, he was asked by Lyons' counsel whether he considered that the handrails and nonskid surface he mentioned in the report would have been necessary to make the C.C. RIDER safe for your men to use. LeBlanc replied in the negative. He had not previously testified to any opinion on this subject. LeBlanc was already impeached by the accident report he had made out and his admissions concerning it, all of which was before the jury. The fact that Ma-Ju subsequently in fact added a handrail, or nonskid surfacing, would not further impeach LeBlanc, particularly as there was no evidence that he directed Ma-Ju to do so. Even if the fact of subsequent repair theoretically had some slight incremental impeachment value, the district court was well within its discretion in concluding that any such value was outweighed by the risk of confusion and undue prejudice. 16 48 Lyons also contends that evidence that Ma-Ju subsequently added the handrail was admissible as tending to negate her contributory negligence. We doubt that it had a sufficiently significant probative tendency to do so such that we could say the district court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence. See note 16, supra. In any event, since the jury found Ma-Ju was not negligent and since we have held that Kerr-McGee was entitled to a directed verdict (and would have been even if the complained of excluded evidence had been admitted), the question of Lyons' contributory negligence is immaterial. 49 We conclude that the complained of evidentiary rulings present no reversible error.