0807

I would make essentially the same objection. "I object to evidence of the change in design on Rule 403 grounds. Because the litigation concerns the bulldozer, and that is the only issue the expert addressed, any different design used for the loader is of little or no probative value, and will simply confuse the issues."

I still would not invoke Rule 407

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.eduand refer to 0807.

If Caterpillar made the more obvious objection that this was evidence of a subsequent remedial measure under Rule 407, what response can the plaintiff make?

When you think you know the answer, click here to continue.