After an incident, one of the first questions people often ask is:
“Did the property owner fix the problem afterward?”
If the answer is yes, many assume that the repair proves the owner must have known the condition was dangerous.
But the law usually treats this situation differently than people expect.
Under Connecticut evidence law—and the law in most states—repairs made after an incident generally cannot be used in court to prove negligence.
This rule, found in the Connecticut Code of Evidence 4-7, applies to what the law calls “subsequent remedial measures.”
In simple terms, a subsequent remedial measure is any step taken after an incident that would have made the injury less likely to occur if it had been taken earlier.
Examples might include: ·
- repairing a broken stair
- replacing faulty equipment
- installing a safety guard or warning sign
At first glance, excluding this evidence might seem counterintuitive. If someone fixes a dangerous condition after an incident, why shouldn’t a jury hear about it?
The answer lies in the public policy behind the rule.
Courts want to encourage individuals, companies, and property owners to fix dangerous conditions quickly. If every repair could automatically be used as evidence of negligence in court, defendants might hesitate before making safety improvements.
That hesitation could leave dangerous conditions uncorrected—and potentially lead to more injuries.
Because of that concern, the law generally prevents plaintiffs from introducing evidence of post-accident repairs to prove that the defendant acted negligently.
This rule has been recognized in Connecticut for well over a century. Courts have consistently held that evidence of repairs made after an incident should not be used as an admission that the defendant was negligent at the time the accident occurred.
Instead, juries are asked to decide negligence based on the evidence that existed before the accident happened, not actions taken afterward.
However, the Courts in Connecticut have developed important exceptions. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be used to prove (1) who had control over the defect, (2) whether the repair made after the incident could have feasibly been made before the incident. Other exceptions include the impeachment of a witness. In fact, Courts in Connecticut have held that evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be admitted to prove any relevant point other than to establish the negligence of the Defendant.
Those exceptions can play an important role in trial strategy. For example, if a Defendant wants to take advantage of the Rule, the Defendant must be careful not to “open the door” to its relevance during the trial. Otherwise, the Defendant can be considered to waive the protections the Rule afforded. Experienced trial lawyers assess these evidentiary issues well before the trial arises.
In the next article, we will explore some of the key exceptions that allow post-accident repairs or design changes to be introduced in court under certain circumstances.
