Me. R. Evid. 407

As amended through November 25, 2024

Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures; Notification of Defect

(a) Subsequent remedial measures. When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

(1) Negligence;

(2) Culpable conduct;

(3) A defect in a product or its design; or

(4) A need for a warning or instruction. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or-if disputed-proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

(b) Notification of defect. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of this rule, a manufacturer's written notification to purchasers of a defect in its product is admissible to prove the existence of the defect.

Me. R. Evid. 407

Adopted effective 1/1/2015.

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

The bulk of Maine Rule 407(a) has been restyled in accordance with Federal Rule 407. Maine Rule 407(b), which has no federal counterpart, has been restyled.

Federal Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 407 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Rule 407 previously provided that evidence was not excluded if offered for a purpose not explicitly prohibited by the Rule. To improve the language of the Rule, it now provides that the court may admit evidence if offered for a permissible purpose. There is no intent to change the process for admitting evidence covered by the Rule. It remains the case that if offered for an impermissible purpose, it must be excluded, and if offered for a purpose not barred by the Rule, its admissibility remains governed by the general principles of Rules 402, 403, 801, etc.

.