§ 90.407, Fla. Stat. — Subsequent Remedial Measures
Plain English
This rule keeps a defendant’s after-the-fact fix from being treated as a confession. If a company repairs a hazard, recalls a product, or changes a procedure after someone is hurt, that later “remedial measure” cannot be used to prove negligence, a product defect, or culpable conduct. The policy is simple and deliberate: society wants people to fix dangers right away, not sit on them out of fear the repair becomes Exhibit A. But there’s a major “unless” — the evidence can come in for another purpose: proving ownership or control, showing the feasibility of a safer precaution (if the defendant disputes it), or impeachment.
From the Courtroom
The fight over 90.407 is almost always about the exceptions. The defense says “subsequent remedial measure — inadmissible.” The plaintiff answers, “I’m not offering the fix to prove negligence — I’m offering it because they swore a safer design was impossible, then quietly built it the next month.” Feasibility and impeachment are the doors this evidence walks through.
Key Points & Authority
- § 90.407, Fla. Stat. — Post-event remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence, product defect, or culpable conduct.
- Exceptions: admissible for another purpose — ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures (if controverted), or impeachment.
- Federal parallel: Fed. R. Evid. 407 applies the same exclusion with the same “another purpose” exceptions.
Federal Parallel
The federal counterpart is Fed. R. Evid. 407 — subsequent remedial measures are excluded to prove fault or defect, but admissible for purposes like feasibility (if disputed) or impeachment.
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Evidence Code, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by an event, which measures if taken before the event would have made injury or harm less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence, the existence of a product defect, 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 the feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Educational reference. Educational only — not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
Section 90.407 bars evidence of post-event remedial measures to prove negligence, product defect, or culpable conduct, but allows it for other purposes such as ownership, control, feasibility (if controverted), or impeachment.