10459
*10459-S.-17-1*
10459
Institution Harvard Law School
Course / Session Schauer- Evidence in-class
Control Code OPEN LAPTOP + NETWORK
Instructor NA
Extegrity Exam4 > 8.10.17.2
10459-S.-17-1
Section . Page 1 of 17
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Institution Harvard Law School
Printed on January 27, 2009
Course Schauer- Evidence in-class
Instructor NA
Control Code OPEN LAPTOP + NETWORK
Exam ID 10459
Word Count(s)
Section 1 152
Section 2 469
Section 3 307
Section 4 323
Section 5 221
Section 6 206
Section 7 483
Section 8 134
Section 9 164
Section 10 384
Section 11 298
Section 12 205
Section 13 295
Section 14 240
Section 15 315
10459
*10459-S.-17-2*
10459
Institution Harvard Law School
Course / Session Schauer- Evidence in-class
Control Code OPEN LAPTOP + NETWORK
Instructor NA
Extegrity Exam4 > 8.10.17.2
10459-S.-17-2
Section . Page 2 of 17
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Answer-to-Question-_1_
While I would want to introduce this evidence as attorney for the Damour family because it is
damaging to Wal-mart, under Rule 407 subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to show
negligence. The only way that I would be able to get the evidence admitted would be to if were
offered to show ownership, control, or feasibility if one of those issues was controverted by the
opposing party. If Wal-mart attempted to claim that it could not have erected barriers or hired
security guards because the measure would have been impossible to implement or they did not
have control over the area the surrounding the store, then that evidence would be admissible. I
could also use the evidence for impeachment purposes if it were appropriate based on the
testimony presented by Wal-mart's witnesses. Because of the categorical exclusion of subsequent
remedial mesaures, I