Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 27
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (2026)

Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture or sale of a defective product.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., Inc., 694 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., Inc., 694 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 4× “This evidence was excluded pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 1995), which provides in relevant part: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not…”
O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 903 N.W.2d 432 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “Cessna moved in limine to exclude evidence of the postaccident design changes as a subsequent remedial measure under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 2016). The court sustained Cessna’s motion, but indicated it would revisit the admissibility of the design change evidence…”
Rahmig v. Mosley Mach. Co., 412 N.W.2d 56 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “407 *445 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 1985)), which provides: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct…”
McDermott v. Platte Cnty. Agric. Soc'y, 515 N.W.2d 121 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 1989) provides in part: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in…”
Houston v. Metrovision, Inc., 677 N.W.2d 139 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 3× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 1995), evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.”
Hoover v. Burlington N. R.R., 559 N.W.2d 729 (Neb. 1997). · cites it 2× “Rule 407 provides in relevant part: “When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.”…”
Wollenhaupt v. Andersen Fire Equip. Co., 440 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407 (Reissue 1985) provides in relevant part: When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct…”
Grenada Steel Indus., Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1983). “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-407 is identical to the federal rule, but adds at the end: “Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture and sale of a defective product.”
Kurz v. Dinklage Feed Yard, Inc., 286 N.W.2d 257 (Neb. 1979). · cites it 4× “Under section 27-407, R. R. S. 1943, evidence of subsequent measures is admissible to show “feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted.”
Herndon v. Seven Bar Flying Serv., Inc., 716 F.2d 1322 (10th Cir. 1983). “§ 12-686(a) and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-407 (which expressly forbid admitting evidence to prove defects against product manufacturers).”
Hallmark v. Allied Prods. Corp., 646 P.2d 319 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “5 . The Arizona legislature has addressed this issue in A.”
Walker v. BNSF Ry. Co., 946 N.W.2d 656 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 9× “§ 27-407 (Reissue 2016). Those rules are set forth below.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.