The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P slipped, fell, and injured his back while working as a piledriver at a job site. P sued for negligence. D owned the facility, but the occupier was Sea-3, Inc. (D1). Ds filed third-party complaints against P's employer, Goudreau Construction Corp. (Goudreau). Ds disputed who had control of the ramp where P fell. In April 1992, the ramp was replaced by D, at D1's request because the concrete cell cap had settled. P sought to introduce this evidence showing that D had ownership and control over the ramp. Prior to trial, D had filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of the changes made to the ramp both on the issues of negligence and control. D argued that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 407 to prove negligent or culpable conduct. The court allowed the evidence but with a limiting instruction that it showed ownership only and not negligence or an admission of negligence. P got the verdict and D appealed in part over the admission of the evidence. D contends that the probative value of the evidence was 'substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.