Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Rethinking Dui Law In Virginia, Monte Kuligowski
Rethinking Dui Law In Virginia, Monte Kuligowski
University of Richmond Law Review
As the demand for safer roadways needs little supporting argument, I turn to the constitutional problem of strict criminal liability law, followed with a brief analysis of criminal intent and strict liability law within the criminal system, some examples of how other states have responded to the inherent tensions, and a few specific thoughts for the legislature to consider.
A Proposal To Amend Rule 407 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Conform With The Underlying Relevancy Rationale For The Rule In Negligence And Strict Liability Actions, Ralph Ruebner, Eugene Goryunov
A Proposal To Amend Rule 407 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Conform With The Underlying Relevancy Rationale For The Rule In Negligence And Strict Liability Actions, Ralph Ruebner, Eugene Goryunov
ExpressO
The current version of FRE 407 prevents the use of evidence of remedial measures taken after an event that caused an injury or harm in order to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or strict product liability. Our proposal is that the language of Rule 407 be amended to preclude the admissibility of remedial measures which are taken both before and after an injury. This change will implement the relevancy rationale for the rule.
Who Knew? Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark G. Boyko, Ryan G. Vacca
Who Knew? Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark G. Boyko, Ryan G. Vacca
Law Faculty Scholarship
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits the introduction of subsequent remedial measures for the purposes of demonstrating negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But the rule breaks down, in application and purpose, when a defendant undertakes the new safety measure after the plaintiff's injury, but before the defendant had knowledge of the loss. Such a situation is not uncommon. Would-be defendants frequently improve their products and product safety for a variety of reasons. Toxic exposure cases, where exposure often predates diagnosis of the injury by a decade or more, represent a prime example of cases where defendants are likely to …