Anderson v. Malloy
700 F.2d 1208 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible when a defendant controverts the feasibility of those measures by testifying that they would be ineffective or provide a 'false sense of security,' as such testimony goes to the measure's utility and success, not just its possibility.
Facts:
- In January and February 1979, Linda and Derriel Anderson were guests at a motel owned by Malloy, Zes, and Gibson.
- The motel was a converted apartment complex with ground-floor units, each having a separate entrance opening to the outside.
- The doors to the motel rooms were not equipped with safety chains or 'peep holes'.
- On February 7, 1979, an unknown assailant forcibly entered Linda Anderson's motel room while she was alone.
- The assailant assaulted and raped Linda Anderson.
- After the assault, the motel owners installed safety chains and 'peep holes' on the entrance doors of all motel units.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda and Derriel Anderson filed a lawsuit against Malloy, Zes, and Gibson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- The plaintiffs alleged claims of negligence, breach of express warranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- During a jury trial, the district court excluded several pieces of the plaintiffs' proffered evidence, including evidence of subsequent installation of safety chains and peep holes.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The district court entered a final judgment on the verdict for the defendants.
- The Andersons, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibit the admission of evidence that a defendant installed safety devices after an incident, when that defendant has testified that such devices would provide only 'false security,' thereby controverting their feasibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Lay, Chief Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove the feasibility of such measures after feasibility has been controverted by the defendant. The court reasoned that 'feasibility' encompasses not only the physical possibility of a measure but also its 'ultimate utility and success in its intended performance.' When defendant Malloy testified that safety chains and peep holes would provide a 'false sense of security' based on a police chief's recommendation, he effectively argued that the measures were not 'capable of being utilized or dealt with successfully.' This testimony controverted the feasibility of the devices, thereby opening the door for the plaintiffs to introduce evidence that the defendants later installed those exact same measures. The trial court's exclusion of this rebuttal evidence was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Gibson, Circuit Judge
Yes. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of subsequent remedial measures because feasibility was not controverted. The dissent argues that the defendant's testimony was about following the recommendations of the police chief, not about whether the safety devices were feasible. 'Feasible' should be interpreted narrowly to mean 'capable of being done,' a point the defendant never disputed. The defendant merely questioned the necessity or desirability of the measures, not their possibility. By expanding the definition of feasibility to include utility and success, the majority stretches the exception too far and undermines the core purpose of Rule 407, which is to encourage remedial measures without fear of that action being used as an admission of prior negligence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'feasibility' exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 407. By defining 'feasibility' to include not just physical possibility but also utility and effectiveness, the court broadens the scope of the exception. The decision serves as a caution to defendants that arguing a precautionary measure would be ineffective or provide 'false security' is sufficient to 'controvert' its feasibility, thus making evidence of its later implementation admissible for rebuttal. This precedent gives plaintiffs a valuable tool to impeach defendants and counter such defensive arguments, potentially influencing litigation strategy in negligence cases.
Unlock the full brief for Anderson v. Malloy