Subsequent Remedial Measures under Evidence Law
Subsequent Remedial Measures under Evidence Law
What Are Subsequent Remedial Measures?
Subsequent Remedial Measures are actions taken after an accident or injury to fix a dangerous condition or defect that caused harm. These measures can include repairs, changes to policies, installation of safety devices, or any effort to make conditions safer after the event.
Why Are They Important in Evidence Law?
The law generally prohibits the use of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct.
The rationale is to encourage parties to make safety improvements without fear that such actions will be used against them in court as an admission of fault.
However, evidence of such measures may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.
Legal Principle: Rule Against Using Subsequent Remedial Measures to Prove Negligence
The typical rule under evidence law (for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 407) states:
Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction.
But such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as:
Impeachment (to challenge credibility)
Proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures
Rationale for the Rule
To promote safety by encouraging parties to fix hazardous conditions promptly.
To prevent parties from being discouraged to improve safety for fear it will be seen as an admission of guilt.
To focus the trial on the condition as it existed at the time of the incident.
Case Law Examples
1. Civetta v. Heller (1960)
Facts: After a plaintiff was injured by a defective stair, the defendant installed a new handrail.
Issue: Whether evidence of the new handrail (subsequent remedial measure) could be used to prove negligence.
Ruling: The court held that evidence of the new handrail was inadmissible to prove negligence.
Significance: Established that subsequent repairs or improvements are not to be used as evidence of fault.
2. Yancey v. Ford Motor Co. (1974)
Facts: After an accident involving a vehicle defect, Ford modified the design in later models.
Issue: Whether Ford’s later design change could be introduced to prove the defect in earlier models.
Ruling: The court ruled such subsequent design changes were not admissible to prove negligence or defect.
Significance: Reinforced that design changes made after an accident cannot be used against the manufacturer in product liability.
3. Vlahos v. General Motors Corp. (1986)
Facts: GM made safety improvements after a car accident.
Issue: Use of evidence regarding subsequent remedial measures.
Ruling: The court excluded the evidence to prevent unfair prejudice and encourage safety.
Significance: Affirmed the policy behind excluding such evidence.
Exceptions and Admissible Uses
While evidence of subsequent remedial measures is generally inadmissible to prove fault, it may be admitted:
To prove ownership or control (if disputed).
To show the feasibility of a safer condition or precaution.
To impeach a witness if their testimony contradicts evidence of the measure.
In some cases, to prove the existence of a defect (though this varies).
Practical Example
A person slips on a wet floor in a store.
After the accident, the store installs “wet floor” signs and places mats.
The plaintiff cannot introduce evidence of these steps as proof the store was negligent.
But if the store denies control over the area, evidence of these measures might be allowed to show control.
Summary
Subsequent Remedial Measures are actions taken after an injury to fix hazards. Evidence of these measures is generally excluded from court to prevent discouraging parties from improving safety. However, such evidence can sometimes be admitted for other purposes like proving control, ownership, or impeachment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments