Strict Liability and the Admissibility of Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measure Under Evidence Rule 407

• NCJ Number: 116927
• Journal: Alaska Law Review Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: (December 1988) Pages: 333-355
• Author(s): I W Bruynes
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 23 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article critiques Alaska's Rule 407 (Rules of Evidence), which expressly permits a plaintiff to prove the defective condition of a product in a strict liability action through the use of evidence of a defendant's subsequent remedial measures.

Abstract

Federal Rules of Evidence 407 prohibits the introduction of evidence concerning remedial measures taken after an accident, which would have made the event less likely to occur if taken previously, to prove negligence or culpable conduct. A majority of the circuit courts that have considered the issue have held that Rule 407 does apply in strict products liability actions. The rationale with which Alaska has attempted a distinction between negligence and strict products liability actions is flawed and is not supported by the policy underlying Rule 407. The rule's policy will be undermined if Alaska continues to admit evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict liability actions. In view of the conflict of the Alaska rule with the Ninth Circuit Court as well as the majority of Federal jurisdictions, and the danger of forum shopping which arises therefrom, Alaska should follow the majority of State and Federal jurisdictions in having an exclusionary policy in strict liability actions. 147 footnotes.