Opinion ID: 707362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: View of Ladders

Text: 12 Plaintiff also argues that the Court erred in refusing to permit the jury to view the ladder involved, an exemplar ladder, and a competitor's ladder that were too large to bring into the courtroom, but were available on the courthouse loading dock. Plaintiff argues that the refusal was an abuse of discretion because the Court allowed only a small replica to be examined by the jury. Plaintiff argues that if there is sufficient evidence without the information provided by the view, and if there are substantial time and distance problems related to accomplishing a view, the denial of the view will be upheld. See, e.g., Apostol v. United States, 838 F.2d 595 (1st Cir.1988). Plaintiff asserts that those factors are not present in this case. 13 The Court did not allow the view, finding that a smaller ladder with identical mechanisms was available in the courtroom, that plaintiff presented photographs and videotaped demonstrations involving the ladder, and that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the ladder was in the same condition as at the time of the accident. Based on these considerations denial of the view was not an abuse of discretion.