Court Opinion

ID: 9704294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:29:58.403195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:59.837516
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, J.
(concurring). I believe that in the factual context of this case there was no error by the trial court in refusing to admit into evidence the fact of the spreading of sand on the road after the accident. The point of departure for my analysis is that the existence of the calcium chloride on the road and the fact that the road would therefore be more slippery than without the calcium chloride were conceded by the defendant. Therefore, the evidence of the existence of the sand would not have substantially contributed to the proof of either of those facts.
The only remaining significant issues related to the quantity of calcium chloride thát was on the road were (1) precisely how slippery the road was at the time of the accident and (2) whether the road presented an unreasonable hazard. Since the sand was spread uniformly, there is no indication that the existence of the sand would shed any light on the quantity of calcium chloride that had been deposited. For the same reason, the sand would not show how slippery the road was at the time of the accident. Similarly, the sand does not tell us if the road presented an unreasonable hazard. A further problem is that if the sand did prove that the road was hazardous, it would also *701establish the defendant’s negligence because the avoidance of an unreasonable hazard is precisely the duty that the law imposes on defendant. To admit this evidence would therefore directly contravene the policy of MRE 407.
For the above reasons the sand either proves nothing or it proves too much. In the peculiar circumstances of this case there is no middle ground.