City of Bethel v. Catherine Peters
97 P.3d 822 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alaska Rule of Evidence 407, recommendations for safety improvements contained in a post-accident investigation report are not excludable as subsequent remedial measures because the rule only applies to concrete actions taken after an event, not to preliminary investigations or suggestions.
Facts:
- On July 14, 2000, Catherine Peters fell in the shower area of a senior center owned and operated by the City of Bethel.
- Peters suffered multiple fractures to her right leg, requiring surgery that involved placing internal and external hardware.
- Her recovery was extensive, and her leg was left permanently bent and scarred, curtailing her physical activity.
- Following the accident, Louise Charles, the City's director of senior services, prepared an official 'Accident/Incident Investigation Report.'
- In the report, Charles recommended the installation of safety bars in the shower area to help elders support themselves.
- The City of Bethel later installed safety bars in the shower area as recommended in the report.
Procedural Posture:
- Catherine Peters sued the City of Bethel in Alaska superior court (the trial court) for negligence.
- During the jury trial, Peters introduced a redacted version of the City's post-accident report over the City's objection.
- The trial court also submitted the issue of 'severe disfigurement' to the jury over the City's objection.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the City 87% at fault and awarded Peters $575,000 in noneconomic damages.
- The City of Bethel (appellant) appealed the jury verdict to the Supreme Court of Alaska, with Peters as the appellee.
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 Alaska Rule of Evidence 407, which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after an accident, also bar the admission of a post-accident report that merely recommends taking such measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Fabe, Justice
No. Alaska Rule of Evidence 407 does not bar the admission of a post-accident report that recommends remedial measures. The rule's language, which prohibits evidence of 'measures' that are 'taken,' applies only to concrete, implemented actions, not to preliminary investigations or recommendations. The court reasoned that the general evidentiary policy favoring the admission of all relevant evidence outweighs the concern that admitting such reports would discourage defendants from investigating accidents. Furthermore, an investigation itself cannot be a measure 'taken previously' because one cannot investigate an accident before it occurs. While the recommendations are admissible, they are still subject to a Rule 403 balancing test to prevent unfair prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly interprets Alaska's subsequent remedial measures rule, creating a clear distinction between admissible recommendations and inadmissible actions. By allowing plaintiffs to introduce a defendant's own post-accident analysis and recommendations, the ruling provides a powerful source of evidence regarding knowledge of a potential hazard. It pressures organizations to be aware that their internal safety reviews can be used against them in litigation, even while the subsequent implementation of those recommendations remains protected. This holding reinforces the general principle of admitting all relevant evidence and may impact how defendants conduct and document post-accident investigations.
