Opinion ID: 1136285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by mississippi power company.

Text: At trial Sumrall proffered the testimony of Bruce Roberts, a project engineer employed by Mississippi Power, regarding events that occurred after the accident in question. Mr. Roberts testified that after the accident, the project was shut down while he sought technical support from engineers employed by Southern Company Services, who then designed sheet pilings to prevent the walls of the excavation from caving in. W.C. Fore installed the sheet pilings and the project proceeded to its conclusion. After this testimony, the trial judge excluded the evidence as improper evidence of subsequent remedial measures under Rule 407 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Sumrall argues that under Rule 407, this evidence was admissible to show that Mississippi Power had control of the project at the time of the accident, and thus the trial court erred in excluding the evidence. Rule 407 reads: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. (emphasis added). The admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. General Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So.2d 310, 314 (Miss. 1992), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 928, 115 S.Ct. 317, 130 L.Ed.2d 279 (1994); Walker v. Graham, 582 So.2d 431, 432 (Miss. 1991). Although this Court has had no opportunity to discuss the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures to prove control, Sumrall cites several federal cases which appear to be directly on point. The case of Woolard v. Mobil Pipe Line Co., 479 F.2d 557, 560-561 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 480 F.2d 925, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1025, 94 S.Ct. 450, 38 L.Ed.2d 316 (1973), involved a suit against an oil company and a pipe line company for the wrongful death of three workers killed in an explosion at a metering station. The oil company, denying that it had control of the station, objected to evidence that after the accident it participated in decisions to modify operating procedures at the station. Woolard, 479 F.2d at 563. The Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was properly admitted to show control under the trial court's limiting instruction. Id. In Wallner v. Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc., 419 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir.1969), the plaintiff sued a bakery for injuries caused by a conveyor belt which was subsequently repaired by the bakery. Because there was a dispute at trial as to who was responsible for the repair and daily maintenance of the conveyor belt, the Seventh Circuit held that evidence of the repairs was admissible to show that the bakery controlled the conveyor. Wallner, 419 F.2d at 1032. The case of Parsons v. Blount Brothers Construction Co., 281 F.2d 414, 415-16 (6th Cir.1960), involved a suit against a general contractor for the wrongful death of an employee of a subcontractor who was killed by electrocution when a crane came into contact with an overhead electrical wire. Because a key issue in the case was whether the contractor or the subcontractor controlled the operation of the crane, the Sixth Circuit held that evidence that the contractor subsequently locked and welded the crane in a position so that it could not touch the wire was admissible as probative of the issue of control. Parsons, 281 F.2d at 418-19. In Slattery v. Marra Bros., Inc., 186 F.2d 134, 135-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 915, 71 S.Ct. 736, 95 L.Ed. 1351 (1951), the plaintiff sued the tenant of a pier for injuries sustained when a defective door on the pier fell on the plaintiff. Because the tenant admitted he had general control of the pier, but denied that he had control of the defective door, the Second Circuit held that evidence that the tenant repaired the door the day after the accident was admissible to show control. Slattery, 186 F.2d at 137. In the case sub judice, there is no doubt that a central issue was whether Mississippi Power had control over the project to install the new discharge structure. We find that evidence that Mississippi Power shut down the project after the accident and brought in engineers to ensure the safe completion of the project, although not conclusive, was relevant to whether Mississippi Power had control at the time of the accident. We believe this is exactly the type of situation envisioned by Rule 407 in which evidence of subsequent remedial measures, while not admissible to show negligence, is admissible to show control. We therefore find the trial court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue and remand for a new trial with instructions to the trial court that this evidence be admitted under a limiting instruction.