0808

Two choices:

1) Same as last time, that the redesign of a loader does not fit the definition of a subsequent remedial measure because it wouldn’t have made the bulldozer any safer.

2) Argue that the judge should admit the evidence because moving the cab forward on a similar piece of equipment goes to the question of feasibility, which has now been placed in issue by Caterpillar’s expert’s testimony.

You’re the judge. Do you admit the evidence?  Does it matter how similar the loader and bulldozer are? See photo.

I think it’s a close call -- it has some relevance and also some tendency to confuse the issues. I’d let it in as a judge, but think others would exclude it.

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0808.

In scenario 2, Caterpillar’s expert says it is a question of money, and moving the cab would be too expensive. In rebuttal, plaintiff calls the same expert whose testimony was previously excluded, and Caterpillar objects that the evidence is excluded by Rule 407.  What is plaintiff’s response? When you have decided, click here.