During a trial, a tenant sues a landlord for failing to maintain the heating system, which allegedly resulted in personal injury. The landlord introduces evidence that immediately after the incident, they replaced the heating system and provided additional maintenance training to their staff. The tenant argues that this demonstrates negligence. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the landlord’s remedial measures evidence?
The evidence should be admitted based on the tenant's awareness of the remedial measures before the incident.
The evidence should be admitted as it relates to the landlord’s property maintenance practices.
The evidence should be excluded because the landlord did not demonstrate that the measures helped prevent further harm.
The evidence should be excluded because remedial measures are not used to prove negligence.
Remedial measures, such as corrective actions taken after an incident, are generally not admissible to prove negligence or wrongdoing. This exclusion prevents a party's efforts to rectify a problem from being used as an admission of liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are remedial measures in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why does the court exclude evidence of remedial measures when determining negligence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of admitting remedial measures in a negligence case?