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.
Very similar to the TX rule. I’d be shocked if it weren’t universal (except maybe in LA).
I agree with you to an extent, but there must have been more than meets the eye here, otherwise you’d think the issue would have been tossed out on Summary Judgment. Who knows. Maybe there were previous incidents involving injuries, or some damanaging document found in discovery that made it look like the state knew there was a danger that it should have fixed.
The monetary award is significant, but not when you consider the guy’s medical bills and the fact that he was a pro athelete now paralyzed, and he’s only 45.