As one of the purposes of the law of negligence is to prevent accidents, it was felt that to allow the evidence in would defeat the purpose that the law was trying to achieve. [...] The plaintiff appealed from the ruling of the chambers judge, in part, on the issue of whether questions relating to the period after the accident could be asked at examination for discovery. [...] The Court held that the plaintiff should have been permitted to introduce, as evidence that the sign was too far from the road, the fact that the municipality moved the sign closer to the road following the plaintiff’s accident and that this resulted in a reduction in accidents. [...] The court admitted evidence that the defendant had taken steps to remedy the deficiencies set out in the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim with regard to the hazards surrounding the design of the steps. [...] On this issue the court stated:12 Insofar as the defendant promptly addressed the deficiencies set out in the Statement of Claim to the extent of using the Statement of Claim as a checklist, I instruct myself that I cannot on the basis of this evidence alone conclude that the defendants thereby admitted liability.