What is the admissibility of evidence of safety measures taken after an accident regarding negligence?

The correct answer highlights the principle that evidence of safety measures taken after an accident is typically inadmissible to prove negligence or defective design in product liability cases. This principle is rooted in public policy considerations: allowing such evidence could discourage entities from making improvements to safety, as those improvements could be used against them in court as an admission of previous negligence or defectiveness.

In product liability cases, if a manufacturer takes corrective measures after an incident occurs, introducing evidence of those measures could imply that the product was unsafe prior to the changes. This is considered unfair to the manufacturer, as it may suggest an acknowledgment of wrongdoing without providing a fair context for the improvements made post-accident.

Furthermore, this principle is reinforced by rules of evidence that aim to prevent the admission of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence. While such evidence might be admissible for other purposes, like demonstrating compliance with safety standards or for rebuttal if a party asserts that their product was safe, the predominant rule is that it cannot be used to show prior negligence or design defects.

The other choices suggest different interpretations of the admissibility of post-accident safety measures, which do not align with the established legal standards surrounding such evidence.