Ariz. R. Evid. 407
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;
* 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.
Ariz. R. Evi. 407
COMMENT TO 2012 AMENDMENT
This rule has been amended to conform to Federal Rule of Evidence 407 in order to provide greater clarity regarding the applicable scope of the rule.
Additionally, the language of Rule 407 has been amended to conform to the federal restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent in the restyling to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
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.
HISTORICAL NOTE
Source:
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 407.