There is a general rule of evidence that says a subsequent remedial measure (such a removing a dangerous condition) cannot be used to prove negligence. However, there are exceptions to that rule. You should bring this change at the amusement park to the attention of your lawyer. The fact that your injury happened "nearly 2 years ago" is significant due to the statute of limitations. You should meet with your lawyer to find out what is happening with your case and what your lawyer plans to do.
This answer is for general education purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it intended to provide legal advice. The answer is based on the limited information provided and the answer might be different had additional information been provided. You should consult an attorney.
Well you have a few issues here. The fact that the ride was removed likely has little bearing on your claim. There are times when it can matter. The fact that you are not happy with the job your lawyer is doing, however, is very significant. You need to address it right away. An attorney client relationship is a relationship of trust. If that trust is missing the case cannot be pursued appropriately. Time can be significant if there is a statute of limitations that requires a case be filed. If you are unhappy with your current lawyers and cannot work it out with them then go get a new lawyer. But you must try and make sure that you understand what your lawyer is actually doing and the approach he is taking before you go running off to someone else. Open and honest communication is essential in any case with difficulties
You should speak with your lawyer and share the information about the removal of the ride (it may be important depending upon the reason for the removal and the law about subsequent remedial measures in your state). You should also speak to your lawyer to share your concerns about the progress of your case. Insurance companies are often rude and can be insulting, which is not your lawyer's fault, but the level of service is his responsibility. If you continue to be unhappy, you can consult with other lawyers who may be willing to take over the case.
NRS 48.095 Subsequent remedial measures.
1. When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.
2. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.
The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Howard Roitman, Esq. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
I believe you have posted regarding other aspects of your case previously. I think it is safe to safe you are not happy with your representation. You should explore other options for representation. Every day you wait makes it less likely that another attorney will jump into your case. It sounds to me like your 2 year statute of limitations is approaching so you need to get on this immediately.
More specifically to your question, repairing a danger is not admissible evidence that it was dangerous in the first place. The public policy concern is that allowing that in as evidence would actually encourage business to NOT repair the problem thus endangering more people.
One quick thought though is that if they took down the ride and have damaged or destroyed to an extent that the aspect that caused your injury can no longer be observed, then for litigation purposes you may have a claim for spoliation of evidence.
If the ride was removed because it caused a lot of injuries the amusement park's insurance company or risk manager is more psychologically primed to pay out. However, even if the ride was removed because it caused injuries, that fact is not admissible at trial.
While subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to show negligence, they may well be admissible to show feasibility of correction orrepair or for some other purpose. Clearly, if there were other injuries on the ride, that may well be admissible. You sound as though you are unhappy with your current attorney. You shoudl consider getting second opinions as to your case.
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.