Court Opinion

ID: 9704397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:34:16.156534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:02.015780
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Hunter, J.
I agree with the majority opinion that the better rule is to allow the jury to determine whether the appellant had a duty to use warning devices at its railroad crossings.
I dissent to a denial of transfer only because I believe that the testimony and exhibits showing that the railroad had installed automatic signals after the accident should not have been admitted. Furthermore, I do not believe that a subsequent instruction to the jury that they disregard this evidence in determining the appellant’s negligence can realistically remove this factor from the subjective deliberations of the factfinders and thereby cure the original error. Evidence of improvements made subsequent to the accident to prevent a recurrence of •a similar injury should not be admitted except when the relevance of such evidence outweights its prejudicial impact to the jury. A contrary rule can only discourage a litigant from affecting meaningful measures to prevent future injuries until after its liability on the original accident has been finally determined. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Clem (1890), 123 Ind. 15, 23 N. E. 965.
Note.—Reported in 247 N. E. 2d 208.