Opinion ID: 167718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsequent Remedial Measure

Text: Federal Rule of Evidence 407 provides: 56 When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. 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. 57 Rule 407 codifie[s] the generally accepted common law rule which excluded remedial measures which were taken after an accident. Rimkus v. Northwest Colo. Ski Corp., 706 F.2d 1060, 1064 (10th Cir.1983). The Advisory Committee articulated two rationales for Rule 407. First, it observed that subsequent remedial measures often are not in fact an admission, since the conduct is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through contributory negligence. Fed.R.Evid. 407 advisory committee's note. Second, it found that there is an important social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety. Id.; see also Rimkus, 706 F.2d at 1064. The application of Rule 407 in any particular case must be guided by these two considerations. See Kelly v. Crown Equip. Co., 970 F.2d 1273, 1276 (3d Cir.1992). 58 More than a year after Mr. Minter's accident, Prime Equipment was hired to perform the annual safety inspection on the scissor lift. It made a number of repairs while it had possession of the lift. One of those was to replace the chainlink entry with a solid metal guardrail. In the proceedings below, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of Prime Equipment's repair work on the scissor lift. Before the start of trial, Prime Equipment filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence of this repair work pursuant to Rule 407. The district court granted Prime Equipment's motion, concluding that the addition of the metal rod represents a subsequent remedial measure. Order, Nov. 24, 2003, at 4-5. On appeal, the plaintiff offers two reasons why the district court's ruling was erroneous. 59 The plaintiff first contends that Prime Equipment should be estopped from arguing that the installation of a solid guardrail constitutes a remedial measure because at trial it took the position that a chainlink entry is just as safe as a bar. Rule 407 defines a remedial measure as one that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur. Fed. R.Evid. 407. If Prime Equipment had, as the plaintiff contends, submitted evidence that the [solid guardrail] would not have made the event less likely to occur because the chain was just as safe and effective as the bar, Appellant's Br. 33, then this Court would have to address the legal underpinnings of this estoppel claim. Yet Prime Equipment never argued that a chainlink entry is just as safe as a solid guardrail. It argued that a properly used chainlink entry is just as safe as a solid guardrail, and that Mr. Minter caused his own accident by failing to close the chainlink entry before operating the scissor lift. Prime Equipment does not dispute Mr. Minter's claim that a solid guardrail would have helped prevent his fall. Under Rule 407, therefore, Prime Equipment's act of replacing the chainlink entry with a solid guardrail is undoubtedly a subsequent remedial measure. 60 Mr. Minter's second argument is that the evidence of Prime Equipment's subsequent repair work on the lift should have been admitted at trial to rebut the testimony of one of Prime Equipment's witnesses. Rule 407 states that it does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as . . . impeachment. Fed. R.Evid. 407. The impeachment exception to Rule 407 is necessary to prevent litigants from taking unfair advantage of the Rule by adopting a position at trial that is inconsistent with their previous decision to take remedial measures after the accident. Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201, 1208 (11th Cir.1995) (evidence of subsequent modifications can be introduced to rebut testimony that left the jury with the impression that [the defendant] had made no modifications to the [product]); see also In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 531 (6th Cir.1996) (evidence of subsequent design changes to correct deficiencies is admissible to rebut a witness's claim that the product was state of the art); Polythane Sys., Inc. v. Marina Ventures Int'l., Ltd., 993 F.2d 1201, 1210-11 (5th Cir.1993) (evidence of subsequent modifications is admissible to impeach testimony that the product was one of the strongest in the world). 61 The impeachment exception, however, must be read narrowly, lest it swallow the rule. Applied loosely, any evidence of subsequent remedial measures might be thought to contradict and so in a sense impeach [a party's] testimony. Complaint of Consolidated Coal Co., 123 F.3d 126, 136 (3d Cir.1997) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). As the Seventh Circuit explained in Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir.1986): 62 It is undoubtedly true that evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be said to contradict, and hence, in a sense, `impeach' a defendant's contention that he was exercising due care or that materials used in the manufacture of a product were appropriate for their intended application. Yet allowing that and no more to satisfy the impeachment exception would elevate it to the rule. 63 Id. at 1210. Consequently, the impeachment exception has been confined to evidence of subsequent remedial measures that is necessary to prevent the jury from being misled. Wood, 70 F.3d at 1208; see also Complaint of Consolidated Coal Co., 123 F.3d at 136 ([T]he evidence offered for impeachment must contradict the witness's testimony directly.); Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981 F.2d 25, 31 (1st Cir.1992) (noting that the impeachment exception requires a great[] nexus between the statement sought to be impeached and the remedial measure). 64 According to the plaintiff, the evidence of Prime Equipment's subsequent remedial measures should have been admitted at trial to rebut the testimony from Prime Equipment's expert witness that the chainlink entry was basically equivalent to a solid guardrail. Appellant's App. 493-94. Yet this testimony is not directly contradicted by the evidence of Prime Equipment's decision to install a solid guardrail on the lift. The witness testified that a chainlink entry is basically equivalent to a solid guardrail as long as [it is] in place, and that the chainlink entry was not unreasonably dangerous because if [it] would have been properly latched, [Mr. Minter] would not have fallen out of the scissor lift and been injured. Id. at 493-95. This testimony is consistent with the evidence at trial that the ANSI safety standards were changed in 1991 to require solid guardrails in response to reports of workers operating the lift without latching the chainlink entry. Moreover, Prime Equipment did not dispute that a solid guardrail reduces the danger of falls for lift operators who might otherwise forget to latch the chainlink entry or fail to do so properly. Consequently, the evidence of Prime Equipment's subsequent repair work on the guardrail does not fall within the impeachment exception to Rule 407.