70 likes | 242 Views
Rule 407: The Repair Doctrine. Repair Doctrine. Change which would have made injury-causing event less likely Made after the injury Offered to prove Negligence Other culpable conduct Including defect or lack of warning Examples. Forbidden Inference of Culpability from Repair?. YES.
E N D
Repair Doctrine • Change which would have made injury-causing event less likely • Made after the injury • Offered to prove • Negligence • Other culpable conduct • Including defect or lack of warning • Examples
Forbidden Inference of Culpability from Repair? YES Repair Doctrine 1 If someone repairs something after incident, it is SML that it was negligence not to repair it before the incident. D fixed hole afterwards D was negligent
Forbidden Inference of Culpability from Repair? No. Inference of ownership OK. Repair Doctrine 2 If someone repairs something after incident, it is SML that he or she owned the property repaired D fixed hole afterwards D owned property
Forbidden Inference of Culpability from Repair? No. Inference of feasibility OK. Repair Doctrine 3 If someone repairs something after incident, it is SML that it was possible to repair it before. D fixed hole afterwards D could have fixed hole
Forbidden Inference of Culpability from Repair? No. Inference of existence of condition OK. Repair Doctrine 4 If someone repairs a condition after incident, it is SML the condition existed at the time of the incident. D fixed hole afterwards There was a hole
Repair Doctrine 5 If changing a condition changes a result, it is SML that the condition caused the result. Connecting Fact No one has fallen since then Inference of Causation is OK Forbidden Inference? No Hole Caused the Fall D Fixed Hole Afterwards