Home › MCQs › Federal Rules of Evidence (US) › Question #3777
Back to Questions
Federal Rules of Evidence (US) QUESTION #3777
Question 1
A plaintiff sues a manufacturer for a defective ladder. To prove the ladder was poorly designed, the plaintiff offers evidence that two months after his accident, the manufacturer changed the locking mechanism to a safer design. The manufacturer claims the original design was the safest possible at the time. Is the evidence admissible?
  • No, under Rule 407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures).
  • Yes, because Rule 407 does not apply to strict liability cases.
  • Yes, to impeach the manufacturer's claim that the original design was the 'safest possible' (feasibility).✔️
  • No, because the evidence is unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Correct Answer Explanation
While Rule 407 generally excludes subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or a defect, it explicitly allows such evidence for other purposes, such as proving the feasibility of precautionary measures if disputed.