Which type of evidence can be admitted if feasibility of precautionary measures is disputed?

The admission of evidence related to subsequent remedial measures is particularly relevant when the feasibility of precautionary measures is in dispute. Subsequent remedial measures refer to actions taken to fix a problem or prevent future incidents after a harm has occurred. In legal contexts, while such measures are generally not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct because they may discourage entities from making improvements for safety, they become relevant when the issue of feasibility arises.

If the defense claims that a certain precautionary measure was not feasible at the time of the incident, evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be introduced to show that the measure was, in fact, possible and has been implemented since then. This helps establish a crucial element regarding the standard of care or the reasonable actions one could take to prevent harm, centering the dialogue not only around the actions that were taken post-incident but the implication of those actions on the arguments about what could have been done before.

In contrast, options like liability insurance evidence typically aim to demonstrate a party's financial responsibility rather than address the feasibility of security measures. Witness statements and character evidence also do not provide the same direct relevance to the concept of preventative measures or their practicality in the context of dispute regarding feasibility. Therefore, subsequent remedial