Evidence - Anderson v. Malloy: The Eighth Circuit Expands the Feasibility Exception to Fed. R. Evid. 407

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|Federal Rule of Evidence 407 (FRE 407) mandates that evidence of post-accident safety improvements is not admissible as evidence of negligence. However, an exception to the rule permits such evidence of subsequent remedial measures to be used to prove the feasibility of such measures, but only if feasibility is unequivocally controverted by the defendant. The feasibility exception to the exclusionary rule is based on the notion that it would be unfair to allow a defendant to claim that there were no available alternatives, when in fact such alternative safety measures existed and were later employed. In a decision handed down on March 9, 1983, Anderson v. Malioy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit relied upon the feasibility exception to FRE 407 in its decision to remand the case for new trial. After finding that the defendants had controverted the feasibility of employing further safety measures at their motel, the court held that the trial court had committed prejudicial error in its ruling to exclude evidence of subsequent repairs...