Although not a part of every product liability case, if the product manufacturer makes “subsequent remedial measures” after the injury-causing event, a motion in limine seeking to exclude this evidence at trial is a must. There is a tremendous risk that the jury will irrationally assume that a product was defective when sold, and that the manufacturer was negligent for supplying such a product, simply because the manufacturer made changes to the product after the accident.

In most federal courts today, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 governs the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures in product liability actions. Although not apparent from the text of this rule, the applicability of FRE 407 to strict product liability actions at one time engendered considerable controversy. Most federal circuits ultimately resolved this controversy in favor of construing FRE 407 so as to exclude subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove a product defect. Most federal circuits also concluded that FRE 407, as opposed to state law, applies in diversity product liability actions. Not all federal circuits aligned on these issues, however, and a split in the circuits developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, largely because of the 10th Circuit.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]