What does Rule 407 say about subsequent remedial measures?

• A. Evidence of remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or defect; it may be admissible for other purposes.
• B. Evidence of remedial measures is admissible to prove negligence.
• C. Evidence of remedial measures is admissible to prove culpable conduct.
• D. Remedial measures are always inadmissible.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that after an accident, evidence about safety improvements or repairs is treated with a shield for fault. Rule 407 says you can’t use remedial measures taken after the event to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or a defect. The goal is to avoid penalizing someone for making safety improvements after an incident, which could chill the instinct to fix problems.

But this evidence isn’t completely off-limits. It can be admitted for other proper purposes, such as showing who had ownership or control of the relevant instrumentality, or to discuss the feasibility of precautionary measures that could have prevented the harm. That flexibility is what keeps the rule from being a total ban and explains why the statement matches the rule.

So, evidence of remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, and not necessarily to prove a defect, but it can be admitted for other legitimate purposes.