Photographs showing a staircase before and after repairs should not have been allowed as evidence in a negligence claim against a landlord, the Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled.
In a unanimous opinion, the appeals court ordered a new trial in a case won by a postal employee who was injured while delivering mail when she fell on the stairs because of what she said was a faulty railing. She claimed that her injuries were caused by the owner’s negligence in failing to properly secure and fasten the right-hand railing of the exterior staircase.
The appeals court found that the trial court in New Haven abused its discretion in admitting and relying upon the photographs depicting the condition of the staircase after repairs had been made in order to show the landlord’s negligence. The appeals court found that allowing the evidence violated the Connecticut Code of Evidence, and that the improper evidence likely affected the outcome of the prior trial.
The building is one with a commercial business on the first floor and tenants on the second and third floor. The mail carrier went up the stairs, delivered the mail, and on her way down she held onto the railing. The railing was loose and rusted out at the bottom and it pushed out. She stumbled, her left ankle rolled out and both her left and right knees buckled going down.
During the trial, the mail carrier submitted two sets of photographs into evidence. One set showed photographs from Google Earth that she said accurately depicted the condition of the exterior staircase at the time she fell. The second showed the condition of the staircase “after her injury and after the railings got redone.”
The mail carrier argued that “it is obvious there is a strong contrast between the conditions of the railings and stairs” before the accident and after the injuries. She further stated that the photos showed the concrete was deteriorating at the bottom near the sidewalk and in the middle of the stairs leading up to the landing. “Proper inspection and a little maintenance would have prevented the plaintiff from falling,” her lawyer contended.
The landlord’s counsel objected to the admission of all of the photographs as not relevant. He noted that the mail carrier’s complaint did not allege that the defect in question was the condition of the stairs and that she failed to prove that the railings were defective.
But the trial court allowed the photos, finding that they showed the older stairs and the repaired stairs and concluding that If the stairs were repaired, “then they were defective and needed to be repaired.” The trial court determined that the landlord was negligent because he had a “duty to inspect and maintain the stairs and the railings.” Finally, the trial court concluded that the “bottom of the stairs and the railings were rusted out and weakened. The defendant should have noticed it over time. That condition could not have occurred slowly and unexpectedly. The photographs and testimony show that the stairs and railings were repaved.”
On appeal, the landlord claimed that the court improperly admitted evidence of subsequent remedial measures. Specifically, the defendant argued that “in direct contradiction to the clear rule” of the state, the trial court concluded that, ‘if the stairs were repaired, then they were defective and needed to be repaired.’ ”
The appeals court agreed with the landlord, noting that Section 4-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides in relevant part: “Evidence of measures taken after an event, which if taken before the event would have made injury or damage less likely to result, is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.”
According to the opinion, “under the relevancy rationale, changes made after an accident are not probative of the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct prior to the accident.”
The condition of the staircase, particularly the railings, was a central issue in the case, and the evidence of subsequent repairs was expressly offered to show that there was a defect. The plaintiff also repeatedly argued that there was a “strong contrast” between the conditions of the railings before and after her fall, and that the photographs of the stairs after the repairs “illustrates the proper set of stairs which should have been in place before the plaintiff got hurt.”
Thus, the appeals court found, the improperly admitted evidence related to the central issue of whether the stairs were defective at the time of the plaintiff’s fall.
The opinion states that admission of evidence was a violation of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. Also, the trial court, which was the fact finder, “expressly relied on the improperly admitted photographs depicting the post-accident repairs in concluding that the defendant was negligent.”
The appeals court said it was persuaded that the improper introduction of the evidence of subsequent remedial measures likely affected the result in the trial court and concluded that a new trial is warranted.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Need Wind Mitigation? New Florida Insurer Wants to Help With That 
A Super Yacht Armada Came to Miami, Leaving a Marine Graveyard in Its Wake 
North Carolina Becomes First State to Pass Outright Ban on Litigation Financing 
NAIC Says Data Taken in Hack Has Been Published Online 
