On 18th Aug 2017, at 21:42, wiedehopf wrote:
i wonder how many improvements are prevented because the manufacturer is afraid of lawsuits.
probably important to have the ntsb issue an suggestion or even an ADR.
in that case changing something is not an admission of guilt.
Did some quick research. (Seemed more interesting than what I was supposed to be doing).
1. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 addresses this issue
for cases litigated in federal court:
Rule 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
•negligence;
•culpable conduct;
•a defect in a product or its design; or
•a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control,
or the feasibility of precautionary measures. (emphasis added).
2. Important: the Federal Rules do not govern cases litigated in a state court -- and this case was filed there. (Whether it will remain in state court, or be moved to federal court, is beyond my limited knowledge.)
3. Each state enacts its own Rules of Evidence. Sometimes those rules may mirror the federal rule (here Rule 407). But a state can also choose to write its own version.
4. Adding to the confusion, State legislatures sometimes enact laws that may be determinative on an issue yet are not found within the state's formal "Rules of Evidence." Appellate court decisions can have the same affect.
In 2010, Illinois promulgated a more comprehensive formal "Rules of Evidence." The Committee that drafted it cited that as a key reason why the new version was needed:
"Currently, Illinois rules of evidence are dispersed throughout case law, statutes, and Illinois Supreme Court rules, requiring that they be researched and ascertained from a number of sources."
5. So what is the Illinois version of Federal Rule 407 (subsquent remedial measures)? Hard to say. (groan)
The Committee that promulgated the "Rules of Evidence" (adopted by the state Supreme Court) wrote in 2010 that:
"The Committee reserved Rule 407, related to subsequent remedial measures, because Appellate Court opinions are sufficiently in conflict concerning a core issue that is now under review by the Supreme Court."
In other words, the Committee left Rule 407 blank for now ("reserved.")
6. As of today, the Illinois Supreme Court's website continues to show Rule 407 as "reserved."
Would have preferred to have a clear answer for you, but .......
7. You are correct that a directive of some sort from a government body might provide a little protection.
However, if a key question in the case is the "feasibility of precautionary measures" -- then the directive (and compliance with it) might tend to show the precautionary measure was in fact feasible.