Subsequent Remedial Measures.

• A. Proving negligence
• B. Impeachment or ownership/control/feasibility
• C. Proving defect in a product
• D. Proving lack of causation

Answer: (B)

Subsequent remedial measures are treated with a safety-first approach: after an incident, steps taken to fix or improve something cannot be used to prove fault, defect, or the need for a warning. This prevents people from admitting liability by showing they acted to fix the problem. But the rule does allow the evidence to be used for narrow, non-liability purposes that can be legitimately probative in a dispute. Specifically, it can be admitted to prove ownership or control of the instrumentality involved, or the feasibility of precautionary measures, if those issues are genuinely in dispute. It can also be used for impeachment in some situations, where showing that such steps were taken can bear on a witness’s credibility. That combination of limited, non-liability purposes is why this option is the best choice: it captures the legitimate, admissible uses of subsequent remedial measures while keeping them out of proving negligence, defect, or need for a warning.