What is NOT a condition leading to the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures?

Subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, as the rationale behind this rule is to encourage parties to take measures to improve safety without the fear that their efforts will be used against them as evidence of prior negligence. This principle helps promote public policy by encouraging maintenance and improvement of safety without penalizing those who take such actions.

In the context of the provided choices, the correct answer suggests that these measures can directly demonstrate negligence, which is not a condition for admissibility. If something directly shows negligence, it typically would be admissible under other rules of evidence, but not as a subsequent remedial measure, as the law aims to protect those who take such measures from being held liable based solely on those actions.

The other options relate to specific circumstances under which subsequent remedial measures might still be admissible. For example, if ownership of a property is in question, establishing that is relevant and may justify the introduction of the remedial measures. Similarly, if there is a dispute regarding control or the feasibility of the remedial action, that information might be pertinent to establishing relevant facts within the case, separating those elements from the issue of negligence. Thus, those conditions are applicable considerations, whereas direct evidence of negligence