Define: Subsequent Remedial Measures

Subsequent remedial measures refer to actions taken by a party after an incident or accident to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Generally, subsequent remedial measures are not admissible as evidence in court to prove negligence or fault. They are considered irrelevant and may prejudice the jury.

There are exceptions to the general rule. Subsequent remedial measures may be admissible if they are offered to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures.

No, subsequent remedial measures cannot be used to prove a party’s knowledge of a dangerous condition. This is because it would discourage parties from taking necessary precautions to prevent accidents.

Yes, subsequent remedial measures can be discussed during settlement negotiations. Parties may consider them as a factor in determining liability and potential damages.

In product liability cases, subsequent remedial measures may be admissible to show that a manufacturer or seller knew of a defect and took steps to correct it.

In medical malpractice cases, subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence. However, they may be admissible to show a doctor’s knowledge of a particular risk.

In premises liability cases, subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence. However, they may be admissible to show a property owner’s knowledge of a dangerous condition.

In car accident cases, subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence. However, they may be admissible to show a driver’s knowledge of a specific hazard.

In workplace injury cases, subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence. However, they may be admissible to show an employer’s knowledge of a hazardous condition.