Court Opinion

ID: 9670873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:27:36.327621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:06.981356
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(concurring). While I agree with the reasoning of the opinion of the Court, that MRE 407 does not preclude evidence of measures taken after the sale and delivery of a product, but before the injury in question, provided they are otherwise relevant, relevance was not here shown.
The plaintiffs theory of liability was delivery of the press in 1961 without a warning tag or placard. While warnings later given might have been relevant to defendant’s knowledge of the danger in 1961, plaintiff did not establish a foundation for this line of inquiry. Hence I agree that admission of this evidence was erroneous and so prejudicial as to require a reversal.
I concur in the remainder of the opinion.