Subsequent remedial measure

A subsequent remedial measure is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe an improvement or repair taken following an injury caused by the prior condition of the thing repaired. Federal Rule of Evidence [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule407.htm 407] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when used to show negligence or defect in a product.

Evidence of post-injury repairs is generally inadmissible for two policy reasons. First, courts do not want to discourage property owners from engaging in such repairs. Second, despite a jury's tendency to think otherwise, evidence of subsequent repairs has little to do with whether the product in question was defective at a previous time.

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures, however, is admissible in some circumstances, such as:
#To show ownership or control of the thing repaired
#To impeach a claim that no such improvements or repairs were possible before the injury occurred

For example, suppose a plaintiff were to slip and fall on the steps leading into a building, and that the defendant then decided to take a remedial measure and coat the steps with a less slippery material. The plaintiff would not be able to introduce evidence of this remedial measure in order to prove that the condition was hazardous at the time of the slip and fall. However, if the defendant claims that he does not even own the building at which the plaintiff fell, then the plaintiff may introduce evidence that the defendant improved the steps to show that they were indeed the defendant's property.

References and external links

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule407.htm Federal Rule 407, Cornell Law School notes]