What is the function of Rule 407 about subsequent remedial measures?

• A. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is always admissible to prove negligence.
• B. Subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, but may be admissible for other purposes such as proving ownership or control.
• C. They are admissible to prove liability only if offered by the plaintiff.
• D. They must be excluded in all circumstances.

Answer: (B)

Rule 407 governs what happens with evidence of steps taken after an incident to fix a problem. The key idea is that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct. This prevents later safety fixes from being used as proof that the defendant was at fault, which could chill legitimate post-incident improvements.

However, it isn’t completely barred. Such evidence may be admitted for other legitimate purposes, such as showing ownership or control of the relevant property or area. For example, if there’s a dispute about who had control over a site, post-incident repairs can be used to illuminate that control. The rule focuses on fault, while allowing the remedial actions to be used for non-fault purposes when appropriate.

In short, the function is to exclude post-accident remedial evidence for proving negligence or culpable conduct, while permitting it for other purposes like ownership or control.