Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

As a matter of public policy, evidence of post accident remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, strict liability or culpable conduct. Oregon statutes are instructive. OEC 407 provides: 'When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This section 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.' 

The legislature, in adopting the rule for negligence cases, rested the acceptance of the doctrine of exclusion on three grounds. [A] subsequent remedial measure is not in fact an admission, because such conduct is also consistent with injury by mere accident or by operation of contributory negligence. The second policy ground for exclusion of evidence under OEC 407 as set forth by the Oregon legislature in its commentary 'is a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety.' As noted by the legislative comment, ...

Register or login to access full content