We want people to design safe products. Fairly radical idea, I know. Stay with me. We also want people to make their products safe after they learn their product is not safe. This is especially true for products used in a a manufacturing or warehouse setting, where the risks of amputation or death are high from exposed gears or rollers on all types of molding and other machines.
And what better way to show that a product was dangerous in the first place than that the manufacturer made it safer by adding a guard or other safety device after an injury or death. If it was safe before, as they claim, why would they need to make any changes?
But Ohio law does not allow the jury to hear that the manufacturer made the produce safer. Why? The theory is that it would discourage manufacturers from doing the right thing and fixing their dangerous product. Such after-injury changes are called subsequent remedial measures.
What does this mean to you:
Even though after-injury changes are usually not admissible at trial, they can be used to learn other relevant, admissible evidence to prove your case by counsel.