## Facts

- Edna Goff, a customer in a Phar-Mor retail store in Mobile, Alabama, alleged she fell when her foot was caught under a merchandise display basket in an aisle.
- Edna Goff sued Phar-Mor, Inc. for negligence and wantonness, alleging the store maintained aisles in an unreasonably dangerous condition, placed displays or objects in customer walkways, and failed to warn of dangerous conditions.
- Dan Goff, her husband, joined the action seeking damages for loss of services and consortium.
- The Goffs’ theory was that the display basket created a hazardous “toe space” and that protruding wire prongs or metal supports at the bottom could snag a shopper’s foot.
- Phar-Mor contended the basket was set up according to the manufacturer’s instructions and that it had no knowledge the basket presented a dangerous condition.
- At trial, the Goffs called the store manager, Michael Broughton, as an adverse witness. He testified the basket was assembled according to the manufacturer’s instructions and stated he was not aware of baskets being used upside down in the store.
- The trial court allowed the Goffs to introduce photographs taken at the time of trial showing similar baskets set up upside down and placed on pallets, a configuration that reduced the chance of a customer’s foot being caught.
- Phar-Mor objected, arguing the photographs were evidence of subsequent remedial measures offered to show prior negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs taken at the time of trial showing a changed, safer display configuration, where the photographs functioned as evidence of subsequent remedial measures used to suggest antecedent negligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama held the photographs were improperly admitted as evidence of subsequent remedial measures used in a manner that invited an inference of prior negligence.
- The Court concluded the error was prejudicial.
- The judgment for the Goffs was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove antecedent negligence or culpable conduct.
- Such evidence may be admissible for another purpose (such as feasibility, control, or impeachment) only when that purpose is genuinely in dispute and the evidence is not used as a backdoor method to prove prior negligence.
- Although trial courts generally have discretion over evidentiary rulings, that discretion is limited by the exclusionary rule governing subsequent remedial measures.
- An evidentiary error warrants reversal when it probably affected the outcome and is not harmless.

## Conclusion

In *Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Goff*, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a plaintiff’s verdict because the jury was shown photographs taken during trial depicting a safer, altered method of displaying baskets (upside down and on pallets). The Court treated the photographs as subsequent remedial measures and found they were used in a way that encouraged the jury to infer Phar-Mor’s earlier display setup was negligent, making the admission improper and prejudicial.


Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Goff, 594 So. 2d 1213 (1992)