Rule 407 and Its Limits.

• A. They are admissible for impeachment
• B. They may be admitted for impeachment or ownership/control
• C. They are not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning
• D. They may be admitted to prove the value of the claim

Answer: (C)

Rule 407 bars using evidence of post-accident remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for a warning. The idea is to avoid penalizing safety improvements or encouraging less diligent behavior by showing what was done after the incident. This exclusion applies even if the measures were taken by the defendant, because the focus is on fault, not on whether the remedial action occurred.

However, the rule isn’t a blanket prohibition on all use of such evidence. If ownership or control of the product or property is at issue, or if the feasibility of precautionary measures is contested, the evidence may be admitted for those purposes. That nuance is why the correct choice reflects the primary exclusion while allowing for these limited exceptions.

Impeachment or using post-remedial steps to value a claim aren’t the primary admissible paths under Rule 407, which is why those options aren’t the best fit.