Question

Ophelia is entering a Get Fit! sporting goods store in a shopping mall when her heel gets caught in a heating grate at the threshold between the mall and the store. She falls, is injured, and sues the store. After the accident, Get Fit! installs signs just inside the threshold, warning customers to watch their step. A few months later, the mall installs new thresholds with the heating grates on the ceiling instead of the floor. At trial, the manager of Get Fit! testifies that he had no control over the location of the heating grates on the threshold since the threshold was owned by the mall. On rebuttal, the plaintiff wants to bring in evidence of both the sign installation and the re-design of the grate.
a. Preclude both the sign installation and the re- design of the threshold as inadmissible under Rule 407.
b. Preclude evidence about the re-design of the threshold but allow evidence of the sign installation to prove ownership and control.
c. Preclude evidence of the sign installation but allow evidence of the re-design of the threshold to prove feasibility.
d. Allow evidence of both the re-design of the threshold and the sign installation.

Answer 1

Answer:

The correct answer is c. Preclude evidence of the sign installation but allow evidence of the re-design of the threshold to prove feasibility.

Explanation:

It is possible that Get Fit! will carry out the installation of the signs taking into account that he was going to be sued by Ofelia. What is shown in the statement is that this company anticipated the facts, and for this reason, at the time of the trial, it has adequate signage that may affect the judge's verdict. For this reason, Ofelia is left with no choice but to make a rebuttal based on reliable evidence that the sign was not found when she fell on the heating grid, for which she must attach photographic records or collect testimonies from people who were in that place when the accident happened.