Tex. R. Evid. 407

Subsequent Remedial Measures; Notification of Defect

sha256 f68c7e7da987a6db1b9da11718195d03… · retrieved 7/15/2026, 8:29:34 PM · Supreme Court of Texas official rules PDF — txcourts.gov, verbatim · verified 8/5/2026 by TXEV-1 July reconcile (artifact-proven, dual-sourced)

Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures; Notification of Defect
(a) Subsequent Remedial Measures. When measures are taken that would have made an
earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not
admissible to prove:
• negligence;
14
• culpable conduct;
• a defect in a product or its design; or
• a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or—if
disputed—proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
(b) Notification of Defect. A manufacturer’s written notification to a purchaser of a defect in
one of its products is admissible against the manufacturer to prove the defect.
Comment to 2015 Restyling: Rule 407 previously provided that evidence was not excluded if
offered for a purpose not explicitly prohibited by the Rule. To improve the language of the Rule,
it now provides that the court may admit evidence if offered for a permissible purpose. There is no
intent to change the process for admitting evidence covered by the Rule. It remains the case that if
offered for an impermissible purpose, it must be excluded, and if offered for a purpose not barred
by the Rule, its admissibility remains governed by the general principles of Rules 402, 403, 801,
etc.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.