Also known as: subsequent remedial measure · SRM · remedial measures · post-accident repairs
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that excludes proof of measures taken after an injury or harm occurred when the evidence is offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or the need for a warning or instruction. The rule permits admission of the same evidence when offered for another purpose such as proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
After a customer slips on a wet floor at a grocery store owned by Smith, the store installs a handrail. The plaintiff offers the installation to prove the store was negligent. The court excludes the evidence as a subsequent remedial measure offered to prove negligence.
Following an employee's injury from a factory machine owned by Jones Corp, the company adds a protective guard. The plaintiff seeks to introduce the addition to show a product defect. The court bars the evidence because it is a subsequent remedial measure.
After a tractor-trailer rollover, the manufacturer installs a new stability control system on all remaining units. The plaintiff offers the upgrade to prove the original design was defective. The court excludes the evidence because it constitutes a subsequent remedial measure offered to prove a product defect.
A defendant manufacturer claims no safer design was technologically possible at the time of sale. The plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant later adopted a different design. The court admits the evidence to rebut the disputed feasibility claim rather than to prove defect.
A drug manufacturer revises its label to add a new side-effect warning after receiving multiple patient reports. The plaintiff offers the revision to show the original label was inadequate. The court excludes the evidence when offered to prove the need for a warning.
A hospital changes its pre-operative medication protocol after a patient suffers complications. The plaintiff's expert testifies the original protocol was the only safe approach. The court admits the later protocol solely to impeach the expert's feasibility testimony.
The rule encourages parties to improve safety after an accident without fear that those improvements will be used against them as proof of prior fault. It rests on the policy judgment that admitting such evidence would discourage remedial action.
The evidence is admissible when offered for a purpose other than proving negligence, culpable conduct, defect, or need for a warning, such as proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautions, or impeachment, provided the alternative purpose is genuinely disputed.
…177, then it can do the same, respondent argues, to promote religious liberty. While preventive rules are sometimes appropriate remedial measures, there must be a congruence between the means used and the ends to be achieved. The appropriateness of remedial measures must be considered in light of the evil presented. See South…
…the right of States to deal with violence and threats of violence appearing in labor disputes, sustaining a variety of remedial measures
…e. g. , Flor- 89 ida Prepaid , 527 U. S., at 640-647; City of Boerne , 521 U. S., at 530-531. "The appropriateness of remedial measures
…409 U. S. 232, 235 (1972); Helvering v. Mitchell , 303 U. S. 391, 397 (1938). However, those forfeiture cases involved civil remedial measures
…must prove the defendant’s conduct “culpable,” and in proving such culpability, section 1151 clearly prohibits using evidence of subsequent remedial measures
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 expressly bars the evidence to prove a defect in a product or its design, and most courts apply the exclusion even though strict liability does not require proof of negligence.
The measure must be taken after the injury or harm occurred. Changes made before the injury, even if after manufacture or sale, fall outside the rule's exclusion.
A defendant may stipulate that a precaution was feasible, thereby removing the disputed issue and preventing admission of the subsequent measure offered on that ground.
No. The rule expressly permits admission when the evidence is offered to prove a witness's bias, to negate a claim of undue delay, or to show an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation.