Understanding The Use And Admissibility Of Subsequent Remedial Measures

How would you know that something on someone’s property was broken, or defective, or dangerous? Or that the property owner knew that it was broken or dangerous? One answer to that question may be obvious: if they fixed something, then it must have been broken in the first place.

Not Admissible Evidence?

It’s true that human nature tells us that we fix, repair, or correct things that are damaged, dangerous or broken. And that evidence of someone fixing something could possibly indicate that the person knew that there was a problem to begin with.

That’s why when someone is injured because of a dangerous or defective condition on property, the first thing they want to get is information relating to whether the area they were injured on or by, was fixed or repaired.

But that’s not so easy to do. Because even though that kind of evidence would be seemingly indicative of liability, it also may not be admissible in court.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Repairs that someone does to property to fix it or make it safe, is called a subsequent remedial measure. But the law also makes evidence of these subsequent remedial measures inadmissible.

The reason is based on public policy. If you were a property owner, and you knew that fixing or repairing something could be used against you as evidence of liability in an injury case, you wouldn’t fix anything or be in any rush to repair any dangerous condition; in fact, doing so would actually be bad for you, giving a victim injured on your property ammunition to use against you in court.

The law wants people fixing their property and making it safe. So, the law says that a victim cannot use evidence of a subsequent remedial measure in court, in order to show that a property owner did anything wrong. This way, property owners will be encouraged to fix and repair dangerous conditions.

When Can They Be Admitted as Evidence?

There are limited times when subsequent remedial measures can be admissible in court.

Usually, it can be used to show ownership—for example, if a Defendant claims that a dangerous part of property is not theirs, or that they have no control over that part of the property and therefore couldn’t make it safe, evidence that the Defendant fixed the property, could be used to show ownership and control of the dangerous area of the property.

Sometimes, a Defendant will say that it would have been impossible to make a dangerous condition, safer. In those cases, evidence that the Defendant did actually repair a part of the property, could be used to show that in fact it could be repaired.

To be a subsequent remedial measure, the repair or fixing must be something that would have made the accident less likely to occur, had the repair been done before the accident. That means that if the repair would not have made the accident less likely to occur, it could be admitted as evidence.

Getting the evidence in your injury trial to be heard by the jury isn’t as easy as you may think. Contact our Rhode Island injury lawyers at Robert E. Craven & Associates at 401-453-2700 for help with your personal injury trial.

Source:

advocatemagazine.com/article/2022-march/admitting-subsequent-repairs-into-evidence