When, after the occurrence of an event, measures are taken which, if taken prior to the event would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequently taken measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct as a cause of the occurrence of the event; provided, that evidence of subsequent measures taken shall not be required to be excluded when offered for another purpose for which it may be admissible, including, but not limited to, proof of ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures if controverted, or for impeachment.
§ 8.01-418.1.Evidence of subsequent measures taken not admissible to prove negligence (Supreme Court Rule 2:407 derived from this section).
Chapter 14. Evidence · Article 9. Miscellaneous Provisions · Last amended 1978 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-418.1 bars evidence of safety measures taken after an accident from being used to prove negligence, while allowing that same evidence in for other purposes, such as proving ownership, control, the feasibility of precautions, or impeachment.
Full Text of § 8.01-418.1
Plain-English Summary
After something goes wrong, people often fix the problem — repair a defect, add a warning, change a procedure. This section keeps that instinct from working against the person who made the change. If a measure taken after an event would have made the event less likely had it come earlier, evidence of that later fix cannot be used to prove negligence or fault for what already happened.
The rule is not absolute. The same evidence stays admissible when it is offered for another purpose the case needs — to show who owned or controlled the property, to show that a precaution was practical if the other side claims otherwise, or to impeach a witness. The exclusion targets one specific use of subsequent-measures evidence, not every use.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can evidence that a defendant fixed a hazard after an accident be used to prove they were negligent?
No. Evidence of measures taken after an event that would have made the event less likely is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.
Are there any purposes for which subsequent repair evidence can still be admitted?
Yes — including, but not limited to, proving ownership or control of the property, showing the feasibility of precautionary measures if that is disputed, or impeaching a witness.
Does this rule apply to any kind of post-event safety change?
It applies to a measure that, if taken before the event, would have made the event less likely to occur.
Why does the law exclude subsequent-measures evidence from proving negligence?
To avoid discouraging people from making things safer after an incident out of fear that the fix itself will be used against them.
Is a subsequent repair automatically kept out of evidence entirely?
No. It is only excluded for the purpose of proving negligence or culpable conduct — it can still be introduced for other relevant purposes.
Amendment History
1978, c. 165.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: virginia subsequent remedial measures rule8.01-418.1 explainedevidence of repairs after accident virginia lawRule 2:407 Virginia derived statutesubsequent measures negligence evidence virginia