Law Commons^™

Who Knew? Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants Are Without Knowledge Of The Injuries, Mark Boyko, Ryan Vacca

Mark Boyko

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits the introduction of subsequent remedial measures for the purposes of demonstrating negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But the rule breaks down when a defendant undertakes the new safety measure after the plaintiff's injury, but before the defendant had knowledge of the loss. This situation is not uncommon. Toxic exposure cases represent a prime example where defendants are likely to have improvements before learning of a plaintiff's injury. Should evidence of these improvements be admissible? The literal text of Rule 407 suggests not. Yet admitting this evidence may not have the same chilling effect …