What is FRE 407 about subsequent remedial measures?

What is FRE 407 about subsequent remedial measures?

• A. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but may be used for other purposes like proving ownership or control
• B. It is admissible to prove negligence
• C. It is admissible to prove culpable conduct
• D. It is never admissible for any purpose

Answer: (A)

Subsequent remedial measures are actions taken after a problem is discovered to fix it. Under this rule, evidence of those measures cannot be used to prove negligence or culpable conduct, because the policy is to encourage people to make safety improvements without worrying that doing so will be used against them in court. But the evidence isn’t entirely out. It may be admitted for other purposes, such as showing ownership or control of the relevant property, or to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures. This keeps the door open for legitimate defenses or clarifying facts without suggesting liability. So the option that states it’s not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but may be used for purposes like proving ownership or control, best captures what the rule allows. The other statements either claim it’s admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, or claim it’s never admissible for any purpose, which conflicts with the rule’s permitted uses.

Subsequent remedial measures are actions taken after a problem is discovered to fix it. Under this rule, evidence of those measures cannot be used to prove negligence or culpable conduct, because the policy is to encourage people to make safety improvements without worrying that doing so will be used against them in court.

But the evidence isn’t entirely out. It may be admitted for other purposes, such as showing ownership or control of the relevant property, or to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures. This keeps the door open for legitimate defenses or clarifying facts without suggesting liability.

So the option that states it’s not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but may be used for purposes like proving ownership or control, best captures what the rule allows. The other statements either claim it’s admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, or claim it’s never admissible for any purpose, which conflicts with the rule’s permitted uses.