Evidence that a party repaired a hazard, changed a design, revised a warning, or altered a procedure after an incident cannot be used to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or a product defect. The rule exists to avoid discouraging safety improvements.
The evidence may be admitted for other purposes, including proving ownership or control, or feasibility of precautions when that is disputed.
Alternative Names:
Remedial Measures, Post-Incident Repairs
Why it Matters?
The exceptions are where the litigation happens. A defense that argues an alternative design was not feasible can open the door to evidence that the design was changed weeks later. Careful defense positioning avoids feasibility disputes precisely to keep the remedial measure out, which sometimes means conceding a point that seems favorable to argue.
Frequently Confused with
Frequently asked questions
When can subsequent remedial measures be admitted?
Does the rule apply in strict liability cases?
