Hagerman Constr. v. Copeland

697 N.E.2d 948

 

RULE:

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is properly admissible when offered for purposes other than proof of negligence.

FACTS:

A petition for rehearing was filed for the court to reconsider its prior opinion in which it declined to consider whether evidence of the subsequent remedial measures taken by appellant construction company was properly admitted at trial by appellee estate representative. During the trial for the negligence action brought by the representative, the trial court admitted evidence of the subsequent remedial measures taken by the construction company. In a prior opinion, the court declined to consider the issue of the admissibility of the subsequent remedial measures. A petition for rehearing was filed and the court granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Was evidence of subsequent remedial measures properly admitted at trial?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The court amended its opinion by holding that evidence of the subsequent remedial measures was properly admitted at trial. The court held that under Ind. R. Evid. 407, the evidence was admissible when offered for purposes other than proof of negligence. The issue of who had control over the opening through which the injured employee fell was a principal issue in the litigation. Evidence of the subsequent remedial measures taken by the construction company was introduced to show that it had control over the openings when they were created and at the time of the accident.

The court granted the petition for rehearing and amended its prior opinion by holding that evidence of the subsequent remedial measures taken by the construction company was properly admitted at the negligence trial.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.