What is prohibited by M.R.E. and F.R.E. 407 regarding subsequent remedial measures?

The prohibition established by M.R.E. and F.R.E. 407 specifically addresses the inadmissibility of evidence concerning subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct. This rule recognizes that if a party takes steps to improve safety or rectify a situation after an injury has occurred, allowing this evidence to be used in court could discourage such positive actions. The underlying policy is to promote public safety by encouraging individuals and organizations to make improvements without the fear that these actions will be used against them as evidence of prior negligence.

The rule does not prevent the admission of such measures for other purposes, such as proving ownership or control, or for demonstrating that the measure was feasible—provided they are relevant to an issue other than negligence. Therefore, while evidence of subsequent remedial measures is generally inadmissible when it comes to establishing a party’s liability, it could be permitted for other permissible uses in court, depending on the circumstances of the case.