Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
Rule 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures
What is Subsequent Remedial Measures?
Rule 407 excludes evidence that a party fixed something after an accident if the evidence is offered to prove that the party was negligent or that the product was defective. If a store owner repairs a broken step after someone falls, that repair cannot be used to prove the step was dangerous or that the owner was negligent.
Source: Fed. R. Evid. 407
Rule Text
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Plain English Explanation
Rule 407 excludes evidence that a party fixed something after an accident if the evidence is offered to prove that the party was negligent or that the product was defective. If a store owner repairs a broken step after someone falls, that repair cannot be used to prove the step was dangerous or that the owner was negligent.
The policy rationale is straightforward: society wants to encourage people and companies to make things safer after accidents. If fixing a problem could be used as an admission of fault, parties would have a strong incentive to leave dangerous conditions in place. Excluding this evidence removes that perverse incentive.
However, the rule allows subsequent remedial measures for other purposes. If the defendant claims the safer design was not feasible, the plaintiff can introduce evidence of the post-accident fix to prove feasibility. The evidence can also be used for impeachment, or to prove ownership and control when those issues are disputed. The key limitation is that these alternative purposes must be genuinely contested — a court will not allow a party to manufacture a dispute just to get the evidence in through the back door.
Key Points
- 1Subsequent repairs or safety improvements are not admissible to prove negligence or product defect
- 2The policy rationale is to encourage parties to make things safer after accidents
- 3The evidence may be admitted for other purposes: impeachment, proving feasibility, ownership, or control
- 4The alternative purpose must involve a genuinely disputed issue
- 5Applies to strict liability (product defect) claims as well as negligence
Common Exam Issues
- Identifying whether evidence of a post-accident repair is being offered for a prohibited purpose (negligence/defect) or a permitted one (feasibility/impeachment)
- The feasibility exception — it only applies when the defendant has disputed feasibility
- Whether Rule 407 applies in strict products liability cases (federal rule says yes; some states disagree)
Landmark Cases
- Tuer v. McDonald
- In re Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation
Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits
This rule is part of Article IV — Relevance and Its Limits of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Browse All FRE RulesMaster Evidence Law with AI-Powered Study Tools
20+ tools to help you study smarter. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.
Start Free Trial