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. However, a court may admit such evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or, if disputed, proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures.
§ 2407.Subsequent Remedial Measures
Chapter 40: Oklahoma Evidence Code · Last amended November 1, 2012 · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceBars using evidence of measures taken after an injury, that would have made the injury less likely, to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or a need for a warning, while allowing that evidence for other purposes like impeachment or disputed ownership, control, or feasibility.
Full Text of § 2407
Amendment History
Laws 1978, SB 276, c. 285, § 407, eff. 10/1/1978; Amended by Laws 1991, HB 1381, c. 62, § 2, eff. 9/1/1991; Amended by Laws 2012, SB 1830, c. 99, §1, eff. 11/1/2012.
Plain-English Summary
This section, Oklahoma's version of Federal Rule of Evidence 407, keeps hindsight out of the negligence analysis. When someone takes a measure after an injury that would have made that injury less likely, evidence of the later measure can't prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product or design defect, or a need for a warning or instruction. The policy is practical: without this protection, people might skip safety improvements for fear the improvement itself would be used against them.
The exclusion isn't absolute. A court may admit the same evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment, or, if disputed, to prove ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a plaintiff use a later safety fix to prove the defendant was negligent?
No. Section 2407 bars using evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product or design defect, or a need for a warning or instruction.
Why does the law protect evidence of repairs made after an accident?
To avoid discouraging people from making safety improvements -- if the improvement itself could be used as proof of fault, there'd be less reason to make it.
Are there any purposes for which this evidence can come in?
Yes. The statute allows it for impeachment or, if disputed, to prove ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Does this rule apply to product-defect cases?
Yes. It expressly covers evidence offered to prove a defect in a product or its design, not just ordinary negligence.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature.
Last verified August 3, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: oklahoma subsequent remedial measures12 O.S. § 2407FRE 407 oklahoma equivalentevidence of repairs after accident oklahoma