MBE Rules · Evidence
Subsequent remedial measures
FRE 407
The rule
Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm to make it less likely to occur is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, defect in product/design, or need for warning. Admissible for other purposes — ownership, control, feasibility (if disputed), impeachment.
In plain English
If someone fixes a problem after an accident, you can't use that fix to prove they were at fault. But you can use it to show who owned or controlled something, or if they said it couldn't be fixed.
Worked example
After a customer slipped on a wet floor, the store put up warning signs. The customer can't use the new signs to prove the store was negligent, but can use them if the store claims signs were impossible.
Memory hook
Fix it, but can't fault it. Post-incident fixes show care, not culpability. Use for ownership, feasibility if contested.
The trap
Students think: Any post-incident fix is inadmissible. Wrong, because it's allowed for impeachment or disputed feasibility. The actual test is relevance to non-fault issues.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: post-accident repair introduced as evidence of negligence. Trap: students assume inadmissible. Key: it's allowed for impeachment or if feasibility is challenged.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.