In what scenario can subsequent remedial measures be admissible as evidence?

Subsequent remedial measures may be admissible as evidence when they are relevant to rebutting claims of no feasible precautions. The rationale behind this exception lies in the idea that when a party has taken steps to improve safety or to correct an unsafe condition after an incident has occurred, it can be used to show that those measures could have been taken prior to the incident. It does not directly show negligence or liability but serves to provide evidence against the assertion that no reasonable precautions existed before the incident.

In contrast, using subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence outright in a products liability case would typically be prohibited, as it could discourage entities from making improvements for safety after an incident. Additionally, proving defective design requires showing that the original design was inherently unsafe rather than relying on post-incident measures. Lastly, demonstrating compliance with regulations generally focuses on whether standards were met at the time of the incident, without consideration of any subsequent changes made thereafter. Thus, the focus on rebutting claims regarding the feasibility of precautions is the centerpiece of why this is the correct scenario for admissibility.