Also known as: feasibility of a precautionary measure · precautionary measures feasibility
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A disputed factual issue that permits admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures under Federal Rule of Evidence 407. The rule creates an exception allowing such evidence when offered to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures if that point is genuinely controverted by the opposing party.
Noel fell from a hospital bed lacking rails or alarms and sued United Care for negligence. United Care denied in its answer and deposition that installing alarms was feasible. Noel offered evidence that the hospital added bed-rail alarms and a fall-prevention policy two weeks later. The court admitted the evidence with a limiting instruction because United Care had placed feasibility in dispute.
Flaminio sued Honda after his Gold Wing motorcycle wobbled and caused injury. Honda had later thickened the front struts to reduce wobble. Flaminio sought to introduce the design change to prove feasibility of a safer design. The court excluded the evidence because Honda never denied that thicker struts were feasible and instead argued a tradeoff with weave.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The evidence is admissible only if the defendant has genuinely disputed feasibility. The rule permits admission for that purpose when the issue is controverted, and the court may give a limiting instruction to confine jury use to the permitted purpose.
Supporting sources
No. The exception requires an actual dispute. When the defendant does not deny feasibility, evidence of later measures remains inadmissible even if offered under that label.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule allows admission for the limited purpose of proving feasibility when disputed, and courts routinely issue limiting instructions directing the jury to consider the evidence only for that purpose.
Supporting sources
The exception balances the policy of encouraging safety improvements with the need for truthful fact-finding when a party affirmatively disputes whether safer measures were possible.
Supporting sources
…negligence or culpable conduct. The rule does not, however, bar such evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proving feasibility of precautionary measures or impeachment. In this case, Beck offered the evidence for several purposes: to show that Caterpillar had knowledge of the danger of rollover prior to his accident, to show the…