A "subsequent remedial measure" is an action taken after an adverse incident that makes the incident less likely to reoccur. For example, if the design of a toy allowed small pieces to break off, increasing a child's risk of choking, changing the material the toy is made from after learning of the problem would be a subsequent remedial measure. Likewise, if an automobile's air bags tended to inflate in the absence of a collision, the manufacturer's correction of that problem would constitute a subsequent remedial measure.

In general, evidence of "subsequent remedial measures" is not admissible at a trial to prove that the party who took the measures was negligent. The reason behind the inadmissibility rule is that manufacturers of defective products would be deterred from making changes to improve the safety of their products if that information could be used against them in court. Moreover, manufacturers should not be forced to ignore improvements in technology. Taking advantage of new knowledge should not be used as evidence of negligence in the past.

However, there are some instances in which courts will allow such evidence to be admitted. In one case in which a construction worker was run over by a road-widening vehicle, the court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence of remedial measures taken to improve the safety of the vehicle because the measures were taken by a third party, not the defendant. The construction worker had filed suit against the manufacturer of the vehicle, but the remedial measure had been taken by the worker's employer. The court reasoned that allowing evidence of subsequent remedial measures by third parties would not undermine the strong public policy of encouraging manufacturers to improve product safety.

Often courts will allow evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove that an alternative design was feasible, thereby establishing that it was possible to avoid the accident that led to the lawsuit. In one such case, the plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken to improve the safety of a dump truck. The court allowed the evidence to show that an alternative design was possible. The court based its ruling on its determination that the alternative design was not a new design but had been used in other manufacturers' dump trucks for years.

Courts will also allow evidence of subsequent remedial measures for the purpose of impeachment. For instance, in one such case, a trampoline manufacturer alleged that the rubber it used to make the trampoline was safe for its intended use. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence that the manufacturer changed the trampoline material after the plaintiff's accident in order to impeach the manufacturer's testimony.

Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.