Evidence of measures taken after an event, which measures if taken before the event would have made the event less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Fla. Stat. § 90.407 — Subsequent remedial measures
Original Text
Simplified Text
The Public Policy: This rule is designed to encourage people and companies to make things safer. The law wants to avoid a situation where a person would be afraid to fix a dangerous condition because they think the repair could be used as evidence of their guilt in a lawsuit.
The General Rule: Evidence that a party took measures to fix something *after* an injury occurred is **not admissible** to prove that they were negligent or at fault for the original injury.
Exceptions (When the Evidence IS Admissible):
The evidence of a subsequent repair can be admitted, but only for other specific purposes, such as:
• Proving Ownership or Control: If a defendant claims they don't own or control the property where an injury occurred, evidence that they later repaired that property can be used to prove they do.
• Proving Feasibility: If a defendant argues that it was impossible or not feasible to make a condition safer before the accident, evidence that they later *did* make it safer can be used to prove it was, in fact, possible.
• Impeachment: To challenge the credibility of a witness. If a witness for the defendant testifies, "This was the safest design possible," the opposing lawyer could use evidence of a subsequent redesign to show that the witness's statement was not true.
Back to Table of Contents
Cite as Fla. Stat. § 90.407 (2024)
Copied!