A factory worker was injured on the job when a piece of machinery malfunctioned. After the injury, the factory replaced the malfunctioning part on the machine and installed additional safety guards to prevent similar incidents in the future. The injured worker has filed a lawsuit against the factory, claiming negligence in maintaining the machinery. The worker seeks to introduce evidence of the factory's replacement of the part and installation of safety guards to argue that the factory was aware of the danger posed by the machine. Under the rules of evidence, is this evidence of post-accident measures admissible?
Yes, because replacing the part and adding safety guards suggests awareness of potential danger.
No, because evidence of post-accident remedial measures is excluded under the rules of evidence.
Yes, because addressing the hazard is indicative of prior knowledge of the issue.
No, because evidence of post-accident remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence.
Evidence of post-accident remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or the need for precautionary measures. This rule exists to encourage defendants to make safety improvements without fear of those improvements being used against them in litigation. However, such evidence may be admissible if used for purposes like showing ownership, control, or feasibility if those points are disputed. In this case, the factory is not disputing control, ownership, or feasibility, so the evidence remains inadmissible. The other answers incorrectly emphasize irrelevant or improper uses of post-accident modifications as evidence.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why is evidence of post-accident measures generally inadmissible in negligence cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some exceptions to the inadmissibility of post-accident remedial measures?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What rules of evidence govern the admissibility of post-accident measures?