When are subsequent remedial measures admissible in court?

Subsequent remedial measures are generally not admissible in court to prove negligence, fault, or to challenge a witness's credibility, as such evidence is typically considered prejudicial and could mislead a jury regarding the defendant's responsibility. However, they are admissible when they are relevant to show ownership or control over the property or instrumentality involved in the incident. This means that if a party takes steps to improve safety after an incident, this information can be presented in court if it is relevant to establishing that they owned or controlled the object or premises at the time of the accident.

This exception helps provide context around the circumstances of the incident without suggesting that the subsequent changes are an admission of liability. Therefore, using subsequent remedial measures to demonstrate ownership or control is a key reason why the correct answer is justified in this context.