Evidence
Exam 1
30 minutes


Exam
Model Answers
Fact Pattern
Several elementary school children complained about the taste and appearance of the
water in their school’s drinking fountains. The parents, at their own expense, obtained
a sample of the water and had it tested at a water-quality laboratory. The results
indicated that the levels of lead, arsenic, and other contaminants in the water
exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowable limits. The school
is required by federal law to follow the EPA’s standards.
Once local media publicized the test results, the school’s principal immediately shut
off the school’s water supply. The school board then contracted with a toxic-substance
remediation firm to identify and eliminate the source of the contaminants. A reporter
discovered that the school board granted the firm a no-bid contract, meaning the firm
did not have to compete with others for the contract. This revelation encouraged
several parents to question the firm’s reliability and competence. The parents also
questioned whether the firm’s remediation efforts would be effective.
During the remediation, the firm’s engineering team turned the water back on to take
intermittent samples for testing. To keep anyone from drinking the water, the firm
placed bright yellow tape around the school’s sinks and faucets, along with signs
reading “Do not drink!”
One late evening two weeks into the remediation work, after all students and staff had
left for the day, the lead engineer on the project said aloud, “Wow, I’m thirsty.” He took
an insulated container from his bag, opened it, and tried to drink from it. Alas, the
container was empty. The lead engineer then filled the container with water from one
of the school’s drinking fountains. Another engineer asked, “Is that safe?” The lead
engineer nodded and replied, “Yeah, we’re about done with our work.” He then took a
long drink from the insulated container.
Soon after, the remediation firm declared that it had completed its work. The school
principal immediately convened a meeting with all interested parents, where the
principal announced that the water was safe. The next day, some students told their
parents that they saw the principal using a water filter to purify water from a drinking
fountain in the school.
Six families sued the school district for negligence. The families claimed that their
children suffered harm from drinking both the pre-remediation and post-remediation
water, because the school district did not use reasonable care to prevent that
foreseeable harm. Assume that the jurisdiction has adopted the Federal Rules of
Evidence (FRE), and that the principal’s announcement that the water was safe is
admissible in evidence against the school district.
3 Questions
1. If the families request to admit evidence that the water pipes had to be
remediated, in order to show that the school district negligently overlooked
the contamination of its water, how should the trial judge rule on the school
district’s objection to this request? Explain.
2. If the families request to question the principal about her using a water filter
after the remediation was completed, to show that the water supply remained
dangerous post-remediation, how should the trial judge rule on the school
district’s objection to this request? Explain.
3. If the school district seeks to admit the lead engineer’s testimony that he
drank water from the school drinking fountain, to show that the postremediation water was safe, how should the trial judge rule on the families’
objection to this request? Explain, assuming that the lead engineer is
available to testify.