🦅
Federal Evidence • Policy Considerations & Exclusions
EVID#080
Legal Definition
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after an accident or incident are not admissible to prove negligence, fault, or damages (in a negligence or products liability case). However, such evidence is admissible to (a) show ownership; (b) show control; (c) impeach credibility; (d) to rebut a claim that some precaution was not feasible; or (e) to prove destruction of evidence.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you trip over a broken step at a restaurant and get hurt. Later, the restaurant fixes the step. In court, you can't use the fact that they fixed the step to prove they were careless or at fault for your fall since they now recognize it needs to be fixed. The idea is, we want to encourage people to fix dangerous things without fearing it'll be used against them in court. But, if the case is about who owns the restaurant, you can mention the repair to show the owner knew about and took care of the property. Also, if the restaurant owner lies and says the step was never broken, you can use the repair to challenge their honesty. In cases where the owner claims it was impossible to make the place safer before the accident, mentioning the repair can counter that claim. Lastly, if there's a suspicion that the restaurant destroyed evidence about the broken step, the repair can be used to support that suspicion.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob owns a store where Sam slips and falls due to a wet floor. Later, Bob puts up a "Wet Floor" sign at the spot. Result: In court, Sam can't use the fact that Bob put up the sign later to prove Bob was at fault for the fall. The sign is a fix made after the incident.
Hypo 2: At Bob's factory, Sam is injured by a faulty machine. After the accident, Bob replaces the machine. In a lawsuit, Sam's lawyer argues that Bob knew the machine was unsafe because he replaced it. Result: The court doesn't allow this argument. Replacing the machine is a remedial measure taken after the accident, so it can't be used to prove Bob's negligence.
Hypo 3: Bob's restaurant is sued by Sam after Sam trips on a loose floorboard. Bob had fixed the floorboard right after Sam's fall. In court, Bob denies owning the restaurant. Result: The fact that Bob fixed the floorboard can be used to show that he had control over the restaurant, countering his claim that he doesn't own it.
Hypo 4: Sam sues Bob's company for a fall due to a broken step. Bob had fixed the step after Sam's fall and claimed in court the step was always safe. Result: Sam can use Bob's repair of the step to challenge Bob's credibility about the step's safety.
Hypo 5: In 2024, a woman with severe food allergies ate at a restaurant operating on Walt Disney World property where she was assured that her allergies could be accomodated. Unfortunately, the food she was served had allergens in it and she died. Her husband sued Disney for wrongful death and, in response, Disney initially tried to argue that because the husband had previously had a Disney+ account and agreed to Walt Disney World terms, the claim must be kicked out of court and arbitrated. You probably heard of this case because the world/Internet was shocked at Disney's response. However, what's relevant to this hypo, is that after this happened, Disney updated its website to clarify that they could not gurantee that allergies could be avoided and accomodated and, ultimately, it was up to individual discretion to decide if it was worth the risk. Result: If the husband attempted to use this website update and policy change as evidence that Disney was aknowledging their previous policy led to the harm caused, the courts would not allowed such evidence to be admissible because it is a "subsequent remedial measure" that was taken after the woman died and, thus, it cannot be used to prove negligence or fault. Whether or not Disney truly believes they are at fault, the law wants to encourage companies in this sort of situation to make changes that may reduce the probability of a future, similar circumstance from happening.
Hypo 2: At Bob's factory, Sam is injured by a faulty machine. After the accident, Bob replaces the machine. In a lawsuit, Sam's lawyer argues that Bob knew the machine was unsafe because he replaced it. Result: The court doesn't allow this argument. Replacing the machine is a remedial measure taken after the accident, so it can't be used to prove Bob's negligence.
Hypo 3: Bob's restaurant is sued by Sam after Sam trips on a loose floorboard. Bob had fixed the floorboard right after Sam's fall. In court, Bob denies owning the restaurant. Result: The fact that Bob fixed the floorboard can be used to show that he had control over the restaurant, countering his claim that he doesn't own it.
Hypo 4: Sam sues Bob's company for a fall due to a broken step. Bob had fixed the step after Sam's fall and claimed in court the step was always safe. Result: Sam can use Bob's repair of the step to challenge Bob's credibility about the step's safety.
Hypo 5: In 2024, a woman with severe food allergies ate at a restaurant operating on Walt Disney World property where she was assured that her allergies could be accomodated. Unfortunately, the food she was served had allergens in it and she died. Her husband sued Disney for wrongful death and, in response, Disney initially tried to argue that because the husband had previously had a Disney+ account and agreed to Walt Disney World terms, the claim must be kicked out of court and arbitrated. You probably heard of this case because the world/Internet was shocked at Disney's response. However, what's relevant to this hypo, is that after this happened, Disney updated its website to clarify that they could not gurantee that allergies could be avoided and accomodated and, ultimately, it was up to individual discretion to decide if it was worth the risk. Result: If the husband attempted to use this website update and policy change as evidence that Disney was aknowledging their previous policy led to the harm caused, the courts would not allowed such evidence to be admissible because it is a "subsequent remedial measure" that was taken after the woman died and, thus, it cannot be used to prove negligence or fault. Whether or not Disney truly believes they are at fault, the law wants to encourage companies in this sort of situation to make changes that may reduce the probability of a future, similar circumstance from happening.
Related Concepts
How do California's rules differ from the Federal rules when it comes to the admissibility of humanitarian offers or offers to pay medical expenses?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant having liability insurance?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to an offer of compromise between parties?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to humanitarian offers or offers to pay medical expenses?
How do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to pleas?
In California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to expressions of sympathy?
In California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to <subsequent remedial measures>?
