Rule 2:407.SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES (derived from Code § 8.01-418.1).

Rule 2:407 protects a common instinct after something goes wrong: fixing the problem so it does not happen again. If a party introduced evidence that a defendant repaired a dangerous condition, changed a policy, or added a safety feature after an accident, and used that evidence to argue the defendant must have been negligent because it later took steps that would have prevented the harm, defendants would have an incentive to leave hazards uncorrected rather than create evidence against themselves. Rule 2:407 removes that evidence from the negligence or culpability inquiry entirely — it is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct as the cause of the event that led to the subsequent measure.

The exclusion is narrow rather than total. The same evidence remains admissible when it is offered for a purpose other than proving fault — proof of ownership or control of the property or instrumentality involved, proof that a precautionary measure was feasible when the defendant has disputed feasibility, or impeachment of a witness whose testimony conflicts with the fact that the measure was taken. The rule does not hide the fact that a repair happened; it only keeps that fact from being used as an admission of prior fault.