Printable Format60-451. Subsequent remedial conduct. When after the occurrence of an event remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-451; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Note on landlord-tenant implied warranty of habitability, 22 K.L.R. 666, 678 (1974).
Admissibility of Subsequent Design Changes and Recall Letters," Dwight Corrin, 4 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 24 (1981).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 50 (1984).
"Subsequent Remedial Conduct in Road Defect Cases," Randall Rathbun, Vol. VII, No. 1, J.K.T.L.A. 10 (1983).
"You Can (Usually) Get Evidence Of Post-Accident Remedial Measures By Defendant Into Evidence," John L. White, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 4, 6, 7 (1993).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned; sustained objections to plaintiff's interrogatories not prejudicial. Powell v. City of Haysville, 203 Kan. 543, 550, 551, 455 P.2d 528.
2. Evidence of subsequent remedial repair prohibited if offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. Huxol v. Nickell, 205 Kan. 718, 722, 723, 473 P.2d 90.
3. Cited; defendant urged error by trial court due to remarks concerning remedial conduct; held, no error. Hampton v. State Highway Commission, 209 Kan. 565, 581, 498 P.2d 236.
4. Mentioned; defendant's subsequent remedial conduct not admissible to prove negligence in connection with prior event. Thierer v. Board of County Commissioners, 212 Kan. 571, 575, 512 P.2d 343.
5. Cited; court did not err in failing to instruct jury on remedial measures. Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 224 Kan. 437, 443, 581 P.2d 372.
6. Trial court did not commit error by allowing evidence of when traffic signal equipment was ordered and when installed, was admissible to show control. Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 232 Kan. 11, 29, 33, 651 P.2d 585 (1982).
7. Not applicable in products liability cases; evidence of modifications admissible to show feasibility of safer design. Siruta v. Hesston Corp., 232 Kan. 654, 666, 668, 687, 688, 659 P.2d 799 (1983).
8. Question by plaintiff's counsel tending to show defendant took remedial measures subsequent to accident to prove negligence inadmissible. Rood v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 243 Kan. 14, 18, 755 P.2d 502 (1988).
9. Applicability of statute to subsequent design changes to illustrate feasibility examined. Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404, 1410 (10th Cir. 1988).
10. Admissibility of evidence in products liability cases; crane manufacturer's remedial measures in form of warning labels after sale but prior to accident. Blackburn, Inc. v. Harnischfeger Corp., 773 F. Supp. 296 (1991).
11. On question certified (K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq.), manufacturer's post-sale duty to warn of recall and retrofit defective products examined. Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 Kan. 741, 751, 759, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).
12. Evidence of subsequent remedial conduct by defendant to disprove plaintiff's comparative fault is inadmissible (erection of fence after plaintiff fell into drainage ditch). DiPietro v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 28 Kan. App. 2d 372, 16 P.3d 986 (2000).