Federal Rule of Evidence 407, dealing with the inadmissibility of subsequent remedial measures, isn’t all that complicated – as Federal Rules go.  It’s only 73 words long:

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

  • negligence;

Counsel defending depositions have a decision to make – whether, after opponent’s the direct examination of the witness is complete, whether to “cross-examine” a witness aligned with our own client.  Usually, the answer will be “no,” because such questioning usually offers no advantages and could well undermine the witness (who may lose focus under friendly

Recently, in the context of an IVC filter case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

1. Under Pennsylvania law, must a plaintiff bringing a negligent design claim against a prescription medical device manufacturer prove that the device was too harmful to be used by anyone, or may

Plaintiffs love to tell juries how horrible the defendant’s product is.  They’ll tell them how the product kills people – even though the plaintiff in the case didn’t die.  They’ll try to bring up purported cancer risks although the plaintiff doesn’t have cancer.  They’ll argue that, if the defendant’s device were to fail, they’d face

The same Missouri Supreme Court that couldn’t be bothered to review a 22-plaintiff consolidation that resulted in a ten-figure verdict in a talc case saw fit to review a defense verdict in a pelvic mesh case.  One wonders where justice stands among that court’s priorities.  At least the verdict was affirmed – if only barely,