IDAHO RULE OF EVIDENCE 407: TO FIX OR NOT TO FIX

Idaho follows the general rule that evidence of post-accident repairs or alterations, or “subsequent remedial measures,” to show antecedent negligence is inadmissible at trial.1 Under Idaho R. Evid. 407, the evidence is also inadmissible to show a defect in a product or design or a need for a warning or instruction. People usually think of... View Post

NEGLIGENCE DEFENSES: SUDDEN EMERGENCY DOCTRINE

Like the “unavoidable accident” defense, the “sudden emergency” doctrine has roots dating back to the early 20th century.1 The doctrine recognizes that, when a person is placed in a position of apparent peril or danger without time to consider the circumstances, and in an effort to avoid such danger steps in the way of another... View Post

NEGLIGENCE DEFENSES: UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT DEFENSE

The “unavoidable accident” defense in negligence actions has roots dating back to the early 20th century in Idaho.1 It is generally defined as an unforeseeable and unavoidable event that was not caused by a negligent act or omission of any party in the lawsuit.2 For example, if there was evidence of uncertain weather conditions at... View Post

WHO IS TO BLAME? THE QUESTION THAT’S HOLDING UP LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF MORE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ON U.S. ROADS

The push towards autonomous vehicles from tech and automobile companies in the United States remains strong. In the wake of two major accidents involving self-driving cars, legislators and trial lawyers alike have stalled legislation that would ramp up testing and production of autonomous vehicles until one question is answered: who is liable in the event... View Post