미국 민사소송에서 증거채부 결정시 사고 발생 후 취한 시정조치에 대한 특칙

Admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures to Prove in American Civil Procedure

Courts may investigate evidences when the evidences are necessary. If it is the sole evidence for the party's alleged fact, and if it is unknown whether an examination of evidence is conductible or when it is conductible, courts may dispense with an examination thereof. But that is all of legal regulation in Korea. In american procedure relevant evidence is basically admissible, but there are a few exemptions of admission to prove. Particularly when the evidence is of subsequent remedial measures, it is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. But courts may admit this evidence for impeachment or if disputed, proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures. This article speculate the rule 407 of FRE which regulates subsequent measures and decisions thereof. Especially the terminology of feasibility exception is deeply introduced, and the circumstance of the impeachment exception is well studied. I want this study to improve Korean legislation and court decisions.