NH · rules
N.H. R. Ev. 407
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:
negligence;
culpable conduct;
a defect in a product or its design; or
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.
History
2016 NHRE Update Committee Note The amendment made by supreme court order dated April 20, 2017, effective July 1, 2017, made stylistic and substantive changes to the rule. The amendment provides that the evidence of subsequent remedial measures may not be used to prove, “a defect in a product or its design,” or that a warning or instruction should have accompanied a product. The language of the amended rule mirrors Federal Rule of Evidence 407. For additional guidance regarding the substantive changes to the rule see the notes following Federal Rules of Evidence 407 (Notes of Advisory Committee on 1997 amendments).
Provenance
- Source
- www.courts.nh.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-17
- Edition
- 2026-09-16
- Content hash
f2c5c368daba29c56c6fecd3b64ceeb55342cdcd001acd0f76dd99ffaf7982d1
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.