The exclusionary rule, under which evidence gathered by the police from an illegal search is excluded, is of similar operation but is typically considered separately.
Second, excluding subsequent remedial measures from evidence avoids having to give juries the difficult task of distinguishing between defendant's due care prior to plaintiff's injury, and defendant's due care subsequent to plaintiff's injury.
FRE 407 prohibits plaintiff from introducing evidence of this subsequent remedial measure to prove that the steps were hazardous at the time of her injury.
FRE 411 states: The rule spells out four exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility: evidence of a party's ownership of liability insurance—or of a party's failure to own liability insurance—is admissible to prove (1) a witness' bias or prejudice, i.e. for witness impeachment; (2) agency; (3) ownership; and (4) control.
Additionally, an exception arises where the party's mention of its own liability insurance is inextricably intertwined with another statement that is admissible.
Offers to settle a claim, and related statements made during a settlement conference, are generally inadmissible under FRE 408.
This rule also recognizes that parties may make settlement offers even where they believe they have no actual liability, in order to avoid the expense of litigation.
For example, an officer conducting a warrantless search may have more of an opportunity to plant evidence, and a confession coerced out of a party denied access to legal counsel may be false.