ME · rules
M.R. Evid. 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.
Provenance
- Source
- courts.maine.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
863d7dd61ed05f818ad965e65e76816c44949f6cf90424dd030eb69e52982f62
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.