Subsequent remedial measures are generally irrelevant to prove negligence.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only relevant to impeachment
• D. Only relevant to damages

Answer: (A)

Subsequent remedial measures are generally not admitted to prove negligence. The rule exists to encourage parties to fix hazards after an accident without fear that those fixes will be used against them as proof of fault. In other words, taking steps to remedy a dangerous condition after a incident is not something that should automatically establish that the defendant was negligent.

But these post-accident actions aren’t entirely irrelevant. They may be admitted for other purposes, such as showing ownership or control of the property, or proving the feasibility of precautionary measures if those issues are in dispute. That means the evidence isn’t used to argue negligence itself, but it can be relevant to other contested points.

So the statement is true: the measures are generally irrelevant to prove negligence.