Under Rule 407, which statement best describes the admissibility of evidence of subsequent measures?

• A. It is admissible to prove negligence
• B. It is admissible to prove culpable conduct
• C. It is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect
• D. It is admissible to prove liability in product design cases

Answer: (C)

The key idea here is Rule 407’s limit on using evidence of after-the-event remedial actions to prove fault. After an incident, people or manufacturers may take steps to repair or improve things. If that post-event activity were admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect, it could deter individuals from making safety repairs. To avoid penalizing good-faith improvements, the rule bars such evidence when it’s offered to show fault or defect. Therefore, the statement that such evidence is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect is the correct description.

While there are narrow permissible uses of post-event measures for other purposes (like showing ownership or control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures if those issues are in dispute), those are separate questions and do not make post-event measures admissible for proving negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect.