context of Rule 407’s exceptions to prevent them from overwhelming the general rule, thus undermining its supporting policy goals. See Cyr, 652 A.2d at 694; Wilkinson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 920 F.2d 1560, 1567 (11th Cir.1991); McPadden v. Armstrong World Indus. Inc. (In re Joint E. Dist. and S. Dist. Asbestos Litig.), 995 F.2d 343, 345 (2d Cir.1993) (indicating that the feasibility exception is not an “open sesame”). Accordingly, the feasibility exception has not been applied where a defendant merely suggests that an original design is acceptable, or argues about tradeoffs involved in taking precautionary measures. See, e.g., Gauthier, 788 F.2d at 638 (citing Flaminio, 733 F.2d at 468); Grenada Steel, 695 F.2d at 888; Tuer v. McDonald, 347 Md. 507, 701 A.2d 1101, 1113 (1997) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hardy v. Chemetron Corp., 870 F.2d
holding that remedial measures evidence was not admissible to impeach testimony that at the time of the event the measure was not believed to be as practical as the one employed holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony holding that evidence of subsequent measures was admissible to show the feasibility of a design change holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility