In the law of evidence subsequent remedial measure means any repair or improvement after an injury caused by the unsatisfactory condition of the thing repaired.
The provisions of Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence do not allow testimony on subsequent remedial measures in order to demonstrate the product defect or negligence before.
Policy reason behind such inadmissibility is two fold. Firstly property owners are not discouraged from causing such repairs. Secondly evidence of subsequent repairs does not necessarily prove that the concerned product was defective at a prior point in time.
However, evidence of subsequent remedial measure is admissible for the limited purpose of proving the ownership or control of the thing repaired or to disprove any claim that such repair or improvement was not possible before the injury. For instance, when the defendant contends that he does not even own the building on whose slippery floor the plaintiff slipped and fell, the plaintiff may lead evidence that the defendant had repaired the same thereafter in order to show that the premises was the defendant’s property.
