Holland v. French

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020 · Evidence

273 N.C. App. 252 (2020)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 407subsequent remedial measuresimpeachmentRule 401relevanceRule 403unfair prejudice

Facts

After a fatal collision at an intersection controlled by a stop sign for northbound traffic on Red Road, plaintiff sued and later added NCDOT for negligent installation and maintenance of traffic control devices. Before trial, the court barred mention of subsequent remedial measures in plaintiff's case-in-chief but reserved the issue if it became directly relevant during NCDOT's evidence. NCDOT called Assistant Division Traffic Engineer Christopher Lewis, who testified that in 2014 he saw no safety, visibility, or sight-distance problem with the right-hand stop sign and that no stop-ahead sign was necessary. Plaintiff then used Lewis's 2016 post-accident report, in which he wrote that the stop sign was "too far out" and should be moved closer to the road "for better sight distance," to impeach that testimony.

Issue

Whether Lewis's post-accident report was inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure under Rule 407, or instead admissible under Rule 407's impeachment exception because it contradicted his trial testimony. The court also considered whether the report was relevant under Rule 401, whether Rule 403 required exclusion, and whether the absence of a limiting instruction required reversal.

Rule

A professional recommendation in a post-accident report concerning a safety improvement is a subsequent remedial measure generally excluded by Rule 407. But such evidence is admissible when offered for impeachment if it is relevant under Rule 401 because it contradicts the witness's perception, memory, narration, or veracity on direct examination. Once properly admitted for that limited purpose, the evidence is not excluded by Rule 403 unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and a party seeking to restrict the jury's use of the evidence must request a limiting instruction under Rule 105.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a bicyclist was struck at an intersection in Asheville, the plaintiff sued Blue Ridge Transit Authority for negligent placement of a yield sign. At trial, the authority called its traffic supervisor, Owen Mercer, who testified on direct that before the crash the sign was plainly visible, created no sight-distance problem, and needed no relocation. On cross, the plaintiff offered Mercer’s post-crash field report stating the sign was "set too far back" and should be moved closer to the roadway "for better visibility."

Should the court admit the report?

Explanation. A post-accident professional recommendation for a safety improvement is generally a subsequent remedial measure under Rule 407. But it may be admitted for impeachment when it is relevant under Rule 401 because it contradicts the witness’s direct testimony about perception, memory, narration, or veracity. Here, Mercer’s report directly conflicts with his testimony that the sign was visible and properly placed, so it is admissible for impeachment.