Subsequent remedial measure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Testimony · Documentary evidence |
| Physical evidence · Digital evidence |
| Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence |
| Demonstrative evidence |
| Hearsay: in U.K. law · in U.S. law |
| Relevance |
| Burden of proof |
| Laying a foundation |
| Subsequent remedial measure |
| Character evidence · Habit evidence |
| Similar fact evidence |
| Authentication |
| Chain of custody |
| Judicial notice · Best evidence rule |
| Self-authenticating document |
| Ancient document |
| Witnesses |
| Competence · Privilege |
| Direct examination · Cross-examination |
| Impeachment · Recorded recollection |
| Expert witness · Dead man statute |
| Hearsay (and its exceptions) |
| Excited utterance · Dying declaration |
| Party admission · Ancient document |
| Declarations against interest |
| Present sense impression · Res gestae |
| Learned treatise · Implied assertion |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Tort law · Property law |
| Wills and Trusts · Criminal law |
A subsequent remedial measure is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe an improvement or repair made to a structure following an injury caused by the condition of that structure.
Evidence of such repairs is generally inadmissible for two policy reasons. First, courts do not want to discourage property owners from engaging in such repairs. Second, despite a jury's tendency to think otherwise, evidence of subsequent repairs has little to do with whether the product in question was defective at a previous time.
There are, however, two exceptions where the evidence is admissible:
- To show ownership or control
- To impeach a claim that no such improvements or repairs were possible before the injury occurred
For example, suppose a plaintiff were to slip and fall on the steps leading into a building, and that the defendant then decided to take a remedial measure and coat the steps with a less slippery material. The plaintiff would not be able to introduce evidence of this remedial measure in order to prove that the condition was hazardous at the time of the slip and fall. However, if the defendant claims that he does not even own the building at which the plaintiff fell, then the plaintiff may introduce evidence that the defendant improved the steps to show that they were indeed the defendant's property.
