Action taken after an injury which might have made the injury less likely is generally not admissible to show fault or product defect. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407. This rule of exclusion applies in negligence, warranty, and strict liability cases. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407, Advisory Committee Comment – 2006 Amendments.
Rule 407 does not exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to show ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, provided the topic of the evidence is in dispute. Evidence of subsequent repairs can also be used for impeachment of a witness. See Rule 407.
(photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7194536@N02/932055586/)