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.

 Rule 407 states: 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 rule 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 rule expressly does not require the exclusion of such evidence when offered for another purpose. Of course, to be admissible any evidence not excluded by rule 407 must still be relevant (Fed. R. Evid. 402) and its probative value must outweigh any dangers associated with its admission (Fed. R. Evid. 403). See Patrick v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 641 F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (6th Cir. 1980) (trial court allowed evidence of subsequent repairs to telephone line after the defendant inferred that line was not placed below statutory minimum height requirements); Kenny v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 581 F.2d 351, 356 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1073, 59 L. Ed. 2d 39, 99 S. Ct. 845 (1979) (defendant inferred ...

Register or login to access full content