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 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. Note: This rule is identical to the federal rule. The general rule that evidence of subsequent measures is inadmissible to establish negligence is consistent with South Carolina law. Green v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. , 136 S.C. 337, 134 S.E. 385 (1926). Under South Carolina law another stated purpose for admitting evidence of subsequent measures is to show the conditions existing at the time of the event or accident. Taylor v. Nix , 307 S.C. 551, 416 S.E.2d 619 (1992); Plunkett v. Clearwater Bleachery Mfg. Co. , 80 S.C. 310, 61 S.E. 431 (1906); see also Eargle v. Sumter Lighting Co. , 110 S.C. 560, 96 S.E. 909 (1918).