Subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible to prove negligence, but may be admitted for which purpose?

Enhance your Bar Exam preparation with Themis Bar Exam Quiz. Use hints and multiple choice questions to sharpen your understanding. Excel in your Bar Exam!

Multiple Choice

Subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible to prove negligence, but may be admitted for which purpose?

Subsequent remedial measures are not admitted to prove negligence because the rule aims to avoid turning post-incident fixes into proof of fault. But these measures can be admitted for other legitimate purposes that don’t establish liability. For example, they can be used to shed light on credibility issues, such as showing bias or interest of a party or witness. They can also be relevant to litigation conduct, like negating claims of undue delay or obstruction by demonstrating that steps were taken or that actions were aimed at addressing the issue rather than concealing it. This is why the best choice is that such evidence may be admitted to show bias, negate undue delay, or obstruction.

Subsequent remedial measures are not admitted to prove negligence because the rule aims to avoid turning post-incident fixes into proof of fault. But these measures can be admitted for other legitimate purposes that don’t establish liability. For example, they can be used to shed light on credibility issues, such as showing bias or interest of a party or witness. They can also be relevant to litigation conduct, like negating claims of undue delay or obstruction by demonstrating that steps were taken or that actions were aimed at addressing the issue rather than concealing it. This is why the best choice is that such evidence may be admitted to show bias, negate undue delay, or obstruction.

More practice questions