Opinion ID: 1881657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Admissibility of Telephone Slips Made After Lisa's Death

Text: The trial court admitted telephone slips written by Nurse LaRosh on November 25 memorializing conversations between her and Dr. Prater. The slips related to the steps Mrs. LaDuke and her husband should take if they exhibited signs of fever accompanied by a headache. Because the LaDukes both were exposed to bacterial meningitis, they were advised to seek emergency care if they exhibited these symptoms of the disease. The defendants argue that the telephone slips are a subsequent remedial measure and should have been excluded under Rule 407 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Rule 407 provides that [w]hen, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove ... negligence, or culpable conduct in connection with the event. Tenn. R. Evid. 407. We disagree that this is the type of evidence contemplated by Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure. The telephone slips reflect Dr. Prater's warning to two people who were exposed to Lisa while she was ill. The slips reflect conversations after Lisa's death. In that sense, the slips show action subsequent to the events triggering the lawsuit. The warning to the LaDukes, however, is not remedial in the sense contemplated by Rule 407. Remedial action contemplates changing a situation, usually an unsafe property or product, to prevent the situation from causing further injury. See, e.g., Thompson v. Thompson, 749 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Belote v. Memphis Dev. Co., 51 Tenn.App. 423, 369 S.W.2d 97 (1962). At best, the warning to the LaDukes may be relevant to show Dr. Prater's knowledge, post-autopsy, that fever and a headache may signal bacterial meningitis. The warning is not, however, remedial. The warning, standing alone, would not have made Lisa's death less probable. The plaintiffs claim that Dr. Prater's negligence was in failing to properly diagnose the disease, not in failing to warn Lisa or her caretakers that certain symptoms could signal a disease. A warning such as that given to the LaDukes would not necessarily have produced a proper diagnosis. We hold that the telephone slips were properly admitted into evidence.