When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event 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. Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture or sale of a defective product.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407
Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures
Applied in 11 court decisions — leading case Rahmig v. Mosley MacHinery Co. (1987)
Most recently applied in Walker v. BNSF Railway Co. (July 2020)
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 17; Laws 1978, LB 665, § 7.
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Official source: Nebraska Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nebraska statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.