Under Rule 407 about subsequent remedial measures, which is a permissible purpose for admitting such evidence?

Under Rule 407 about subsequent remedial measures, which is a permissible purpose for admitting such evidence?

• A. Proving negligence.
• B. Proving ownership or control.
• C. Proving liability.
• D. Proving the value of the property after the incident.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that Rule 407 lets evidence of post-incident repairs be admitted only for certain purposes, not to prove negligence or liability. Specifically, while showing that a party fixed a hazard after an incident isn’t allowed to prove they were negligent or liable, it is allowed to use that evidence for other, non-negligence purposes. One such permissible purpose is proving ownership or control of the instrumentality or property involved. If the party had control over the area where the incident occurred, that fact can be established through the fact that they undertook the remedial action. So this is why proving ownership or control is the best answer: it fits one of the authorized uses of subsequent remedial measures under Rule 407. The other potential uses—proving negligence, proving liability, or proving the value of the property after the incident—are not permissible purposes for admitting such evidence.

The main idea is that Rule 407 lets evidence of post-incident repairs be admitted only for certain purposes, not to prove negligence or liability. Specifically, while showing that a party fixed a hazard after an incident isn’t allowed to prove they were negligent or liable, it is allowed to use that evidence for other, non-negligence purposes. One such permissible purpose is proving ownership or control of the instrumentality or property involved. If the party had control over the area where the incident occurred, that fact can be established through the fact that they undertook the remedial action.

So this is why proving ownership or control is the best answer: it fits one of the authorized uses of subsequent remedial measures under Rule 407. The other potential uses—proving negligence, proving liability, or proving the value of the property after the incident—are not permissible purposes for admitting such evidence.