Premises Liability / CT Court Orders New Trial Over Improper Remedial Measure Evidence

Premises Liability: Appellate Court reverses judgment and remands case for new trial upon finding that lower court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent remedial measures in violation of Connecticut Code of Evidence Section 4-7:

The defendant property owner appeals from the judgment of the lower court rendered after a bench trial in favor of the plaintiff for injuries she allegedly sustained after she fell while delivering mail at the defendant’s premises. In the plaintiff’s complaint, she alleges that she was caused to slip and/or trip and/or stumble while ascending the exterior staircase at the defendant’s premises. During the plaintiff’s direct testimony at trial, two sets of photographs were admitted into evidence. The first set consisted of photographs from Google Earth that the plaintiff testified accurately depicted the condition of the exterior staircase at the time she fell. The second set consisted of two photographs that depicted the condition of the staircase “after [her] injury [and] after [the] railings got redone.” Defense counsel objected to the admission of both sets of photographs. The trial court asked plaintiff’s counsel to state the purpose of the proffered admission of the photographs. Plaintiff’s counsel responded: “To show that the railings and the steps were fixed after [the plaintiff] got hurt.” The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection and admitted both sets of photographs into evidence. In the plaintiff’s post-trial brief, she compared the photographs depicting the staircase before and after the repairs and argued that it is obvious there is a strong contrast between the conditions of the railing and stairs before and after the incident. Thereafter, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the lower court improperly admitted evidence of subsequent remedial measures in violation of Section 4-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. Section 4-7(a) provides in relevant part: “[E]vidence 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. Evidence of those measures is admissible when offered to prove controverted issues such as ownership, control or feasibility of precautionary measures.” Thus, the central question is the plaintiff’s purpose in introducing the evidence. The Appellate Court holds that the photographs were admitted by the plaintiff for the sole purposes of demonstrating the defendant’s negligence in violation of Section 4-7. Further, having reviewed the entire record, the Appellate Court is convinced that the improper admission of the photographs was harmful to the defendant. In weighing the totality of the evidence presented at trial, the Appellate Court is persuaded that the improper introduction of the evidence of subsequent remedial measures affected the result of the case. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reverses the lower court’s judgment and remands the case for a new trial. Vargas v. Kang Sjuen, LLC, 239 Conn. App. 831, 842 (2026).