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.

 Federal Rule of Evidence 407 does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when such evidence is being offered exclusively for impeachment purposes. Reversible error has been found when subsequent remedial evidence has been excluded when offered for impeachment purposes. See, e.g. Petree v. Victor Fluid Power Inc., 887 F.2d 34, 38 (3rd Cir. 1989). However, cases which have admitted subsequent remedial measure evidence for impeachment purposes tend to involve a greater nexus between the statement sought to be impeached and the remedial measure than the case at bar. For example, in Anderson v. Malloy, subsequent remedial measure evidence was admitted to impeach statements that defendants had checked the area prior to the alleged accident and done everything possible to make it safe. 700 F.2d 1208, 1212-14 (8th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). A more direct impeachment use of subsequent remedial measure evidence would exist if Appellees' witness stated that he did not change the product after the alleged accident was brought to his employer's attention. See, e.g. Garshon v. Aaron, 330 Ill. App. 540, 71 N.E.2d 799 (1947). Rule 407's impeachment exception must not be used as a subterfuge to prove negligence ...

Register or login to access full content