Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 904.07 (2026)
Subsequent remedial measures
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
904.07904.07 Subsequent remedial measures. 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 section 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 or proving a violation of s. 101.11.
904.07 AnnotationEvidence of subsequent remedial measures by the mass producer of a defective product is admissible in a products liability case if the underlying policy of this section not to discourage corrective steps is not applicable. Chart v. General Motors Corp., 80 Wis. 2d 91, 258 N.W.2d 680 (1977).
904.07 AnnotationEvidence of a remedial change was inadmissible when the defendant did not challenge the feasibility of the change. Krueger v. Tappan Co., 104 Wis. 2d 199, 311 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1981).
904.07 AnnotationAlthough this section precludes admission of evidence of measures taken after an event if the evidence is used to prove negligence or culpable conduct, evidence of post-event remedial measures may be introduced in a case in which there are allegations of both negligence and strict liability. When a plaintiff asserts both strict liability and negligence and the evidence is not admissible under this section on the negligence theory but is admissible to prove strict liability, the defendant can request that the circuit court give an instruction limiting the evidence to the allegations of strict liability. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983).
904.07 AnnotationEvidence of subsequent remedial measures can be admitted under the impeachment exception when the evidence is presented to impeach specific witness testimony. Vanderventer v. Hyundai Motor America, 2022 WI App 56, 405 Wis. 2d 481, 983 N.W.2d 1, 20-1052.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Heuser Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Cmty. Ins., 2009 WI App 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
Heuser Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Cmty. Ins., 2009 WI App 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “First, the School District alleges that reliance on the school incident reports filled out by the teacher after the accidents was erroneous because the reports were subsequent remedial measures under Wis. Stat. § 904.07 . Section 904.07 states in relevant part: "When, after an…”
Chart Ex Rel. Sommer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 258 N.W.2d 680 (Wis. 1977). “" [3] *101 [2, 3] Although the evidence may be relevant, nevertheless the underlying policy of sec. 904.07, Stats. is to exclude such evidence so as not to deter a potential or present defendant from taking steps that will promote safety but at the same time tend to be…”
Huss v. Yale Materials Handling Corp., 538 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “Huss further sought to demonstrate that in the mid to late 1980's most of the forklift industry adopted a policy of installing seat belts as standard equipment.”
Ansani v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 588 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Cascade argues that cross-examination of its various witnesses with respect to the manner or method by which the timing box was protected in seasons subsequent to the 1992/1993 ski season violated the prohibition against evidence of subsequent remedial measures under § 904.07,…”
Forrest A. Flaminio & Gloria Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese Corp., 733 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1984). “But Flaminio also argues that Rule 407 is inapplicable because this is a diversity case, and that Wisconsin’s law on the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures should be applied instead.”
D.L. Ex Rel. Friederichs v. Huebner, 329 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1983). “We state our holding as follows: (1) As to David’s theory of negligence, the evidence of post-event remedial measures was admissible under sec. 904.07, Stats. 1979-80, not to prove negligence or culpable conduct but as impeachment evidence.”
Wheeler v. Gen. Tire & Rubber Co., 419 N.W.2d 331 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The court’s ruling was not error under sec. 904.07, Stats., which prohibits evidence of subsequent remedi *815 al measures to prove negligence.”
Antoinette Lang v. Lions Club of Cudahy Wisconsin, Inc., 2020 WI 25 (Wis. 2020). “§ 904.07 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 in connection with the event.”
Ollhoff v. Peck, 503 N.W.2d 323 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “This section states: 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.”
Antoinette Lang v. Lions Club of Cudahy Wisconsin, Inc., 2020 WI 25 (Wis. 2020). “§ 904.07 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 in connection with the event.”
Edward A. Vanderventer v. Hyundai Motor Am. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 904.07. Finally, Hyundai argues that one of the Vanderventers’ experts was improperly allowed to present opinions that were not disclosed during discovery.”
Bryan Hellenbrand v. Air Temperature Servs., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 904.07 in allowing Hellenbrand to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures that ATS took.”
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.