What is the rule regarding "subsequent remedial measures" in evidence?

Subsequent remedial measures refer to actions taken after an incident that are intended to prevent future occurrences of similar incidents. The general rule is that evidence of these measures is inadmissible when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct regarding the incident that occurred. This rule is founded on public policy considerations; admitting such evidence could discourage individuals and organizations from taking steps to improve safety or correct issues, as those responsible might fear that their actions could be used against them in court. The rationale is that the law encourages proactive measures that enhance safety, and therefore, it should not penalize those who remedy problems after they have occurred.

By making such evidence generally inadmissible for proving negligence, the legal system supports and promotes the implementation of safety measures without the fear of legal repercussions. However, there are circumstances where subsequent remedial measures may be admissible, such as to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, but not for proving negligence itself. This nuanced view reinforces the focus of the legal framework on encouraging corrective actions rather than punishing them.