Legal Definitions - Subsequent Remedial Measures

Subsequent Remedial Measures refers to actions taken after an accident, injury, or harmful event has occurred, which are designed to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future. These measures often involve repairs, design changes, the addition of new warnings, or the implementation of new safety procedures.

In legal proceedings, particularly in personal injury or product liability cases, evidence of these post-incident improvements is generally not allowed to be presented to a jury as proof that the responsible party was negligent, at fault, or acted wrongfully in the original incident. The primary reason for this rule is to encourage individuals and companies to make safety improvements without the fear that their efforts to prevent future harm will be used against them in court. However, there are specific exceptions where evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be admitted for other relevant purposes, such as to show who owned or controlled the property or product, to demonstrate that a safer alternative was feasible at the time of the incident, or to challenge a claim made by the opposing party.

• Example 1: Product Redesign

  Imagine a manufacturer of a popular kitchen blender. After a user suffers a severe cut from a blade that detached during operation, the company quickly redesigns the blender to incorporate a new locking mechanism for the blade assembly and adds a prominent "Ensure Blade is Securely Locked Before Use" warning label. In a lawsuit brought by the injured user, the fact that the company made these safety improvements after the incident generally cannot be used as evidence to argue that the original blender design was faulty or that the company was negligent. The law wants to encourage companies to make products safer without fear of legal repercussions for doing so. However, if the manufacturer were to claim in court that it was impossible to design a safer blade locking mechanism or that a warning label wouldn't have made a difference, the plaintiff might be allowed to introduce evidence of the redesign and new label to show that such measures were, in fact, feasible and practical.

• Example 2: Workplace Safety Enhancement

  Consider a construction company operating a large crane on a job site. After a worker is injured when a heavy load slips from the crane's hook due to a faulty latch, the company immediately replaces all crane hooks with a newer model featuring a double-locking safety mechanism and implements a new mandatory pre-lift inspection checklist. In a lawsuit filed by the injured worker, the installation of the new crane hooks and the implementation of the new checklist (the subsequent remedial measures) cannot be used to prove that the company was negligent in the original incident or that the old equipment was inherently unsafe. The rule aims to encourage employers to improve workplace safety without creating an incentive to delay or avoid such improvements. Nevertheless, if the construction company were to argue that it had no control over the maintenance of the crane or that it was not feasible to implement more rigorous safety checks, the plaintiff could potentially introduce evidence of the new hooks and checklist to demonstrate the company's control over its equipment and the practicality of enhanced safety procedures.