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.

Maryland law is instructive. The exception in the Rule for impeachment has created some of the same practical and interpretive problems presented by the exception for establishing feasibility. As Saltzburg, Martin, and Capra point out, 'almost any testimony given by defense witnesses could be contradicted at least in some minimal way by a subsequent remedial measure. If the defendant's expert testifies that the product was safe, a subsequent remedial measure could be seen as contradicting that testimony. If the defendant is asked on cross-examination whether he thinks that he had taken all reasonable safety precautions, and answers in the affirmative, then a subsequent remedial measure can be seen as contradicting that testimony.' 1 SALTZBURG, MARTIN AND CAPRA, 487. See also 2 Weinstein's Federal Evidence, supra, § 407.07 [1] at 407-32. 

The prevailing, and pragmatically necessary, view is that the impeachment exception cannot be read in so expansive a manner. See Probus v. K-Mart, Inc., 794 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1986); Public Service Co. v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 773 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1985). As Wright and Graham note, even at common law it would likely have been impermissible for the plaintiff to 'have called the ...

Register or login to access full content