[Unlikely Hero]

but as a matter of law, aren’t subsequent remedial measures inadmissible? If so, that should never have been admitted into evidence to the jury—didn’t they file any motions in limine?

[jdub]

true. I don't know what the CA rules are. Here is TN's rule:

Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures. —When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove strict liability, 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 controverted ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.

Notice that subsequent remedial measures are not excluded in every instance. that may be where a clever lawyer earns his fee. I don't know what actually happened in this case.

i don't think that the guy should have got anything. I just don't see how the state has a duty to warn of movements of wild animals. But thats California for you.

[jdub]

Another thing is, the jury doesn't pay any attention when the judge charges them. The fact that the subsequent placing of signs isn't in the evidence doesn't matter a bit if they heard it anyway. Consider this scenario:

lawyer 1: so Mr. State Worker, when you later placed those signs warning of pigs crossing, isn't that an admission that you knew that this was a danger to the public?

lawyer 2: Objection! Rule 407, subsequent remedial measures...

judge: sustained

lawyer 1: apologies, your honor...

Its not in evidence, but the jury heard it anyway, and will probably take it into consideration.