blight v. mercy

Vermont Superior Court

blight v. mercy

DecidedDecember 27, 2023

Docket498-7-12 wncv

StatusPublished

This text of blight v. mercy (blight v. mercy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

blight v. mercy, (Vt. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT Washington Unit

CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. 498-7-12 Wnev

Donna Blight Plaintiff

Vv. 7

Jason Mercy and Liza Mercy Defendants

ENTRY

Defendants made repairs to the steps on which Plaintiff allegedly fell after the fall. Defendants have filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude at trial evidence of those repairs as a subsequent remedial measure. V.R.E. 407. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendants have taken the position that repairing the steps was too expensive, i.e., not feasible.

Rule 407 allows evidence of subsequent remedial measures for reasons other than to prove negligence, including to show the feasibility of a repair actually undertaken. However, the issue of feasibility is not a legitimate “other reason” unless it is genuinely in dispute. See David P. Leonard, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence: Selected Rules of Limited Admissibility § 2.8.1 (“[I]n the absence of a clear concession, the court must determine whether the parties truly have a dispute. The court must exercise caution so as to avoid allowing the subsequent repair evidence when the offering party is essentially manufacturing an issue solely to waft the subsequent repair evidence before the jury.” (footnote omitted)).

Defendants represent that they do “not plan on making the claim that the repairs undertaken by [Mr. Mercy] were not feasible.” Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2 (filed May 26, 2015). Plaintiff has not identified a reason to admit the evidence other than to prove negligence. On this basis, evidence of the subsequent repair is within the scope of Rule 407. That Defendants may have believed that they could not afford to make certain repairs at some point is insufficient to show admissibility. The question is whether Defendants will take the position that the sort of repair actually undertaken would have been unreasonably expensive (infeasible).

They say that they will not.

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted. oth Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this / b day of June 2015. pe, Whe ove bet

Mary Miles Teachout, Superior Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPERIOR COURT Washington Unit

CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. 498-7-12 Wnev

Donna Blight Plaintiff

Vv. 7

Jason Mercy and Liza Mercy Defendants

ENTRY

Defendants made repairs to the steps on which Plaintiff allegedly fell after the fall. Defendants have filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude at trial evidence of those repairs as a subsequent remedial measure. V.R.E. 407. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendants have taken the position that repairing the steps was too expensive, i.e., not feasible.

Rule 407 allows evidence of subsequent remedial measures for reasons other than to prove negligence, including to show the feasibility of a repair actually undertaken. However, the issue of feasibility is not a legitimate “other reason” unless it is genuinely in dispute. See David P. Leonard, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence: Selected Rules of Limited Admissibility § 2.8.1 (“[I]n the absence of a clear concession, the court must determine whether the parties truly have a dispute. The court must exercise caution so as to avoid allowing the subsequent repair evidence when the offering party is essentially manufacturing an issue solely to waft the subsequent repair evidence before the jury.” (footnote omitted)).

Defendants represent that they do “not plan on making the claim that the repairs undertaken by [Mr. Mercy] were not feasible.” Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2 (filed May 26, 2015). Plaintiff has not identified a reason to admit the evidence other than to prove negligence. On this basis, evidence of the subsequent repair is within the scope of Rule 407. That Defendants may have believed that they could not afford to make certain repairs at some point is insufficient to show admissibility. The question is whether Defendants will take the position that the sort of repair actually undertaken would have been unreasonably expensive (infeasible).

They say that they will not.

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted. oth Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this / b day of June 2015. pe, Whe ove bet

Mary Miles Teachout, Superior Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

blight v. mercy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blight-v-mercy-vtsuperct-2023.