Ohio R. Evid. 407
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Ohio. R. Evid. 407
Staff Note (July 1, 2000 Amendment)
Rule 407 Subsequent remedial measures
In 1997, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 was amended in two respects. The Ohio amendment is based on the first change in the federal rule: the phrase "injury or harm allegedly caused by an" was added to clarify that a repair or remedial measure must take effect after the accident or incident being litigated in order for the rule to apply. A measure that takes effect after purchase but before the accident or incident being litigated is not a subsequent measure. See Traylor v. Husqvarn a Motor (7th Cir. 1993, 988 F.2d 729, 733 ("The problem with applying Rule 407 was not lack of culpable conduct but the fact that the remedial measures were taken before rather than after the 'event,' which in an accident case the courts have invariably and we think correctly understood to mean the accident."); Cates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (5th Cir. 1991), 928 F.2d 679, ("The 'event' to which Rule 407 speaks is the accident, not the sale."); Chase v. General Motors Corp. (4th Cir. 1988), 856 F.2d 17, 21-22.
The second change to the federal rule, which involves strict liability cases, has not been adopted.