united-states safety product-liability
In the US are new product safety features implemented by manufacturers ipso facto proof that they were aware their earlier products were unsafe?
<p>I've been reading up on features to make table saws safer and in one forum there was a post that said, basically, manufacturers have had no incentive to license a table-saw safety device from the inventor because doing so would only increase their exposure to product liability lawsuits relating to their older models: developing a safety feature themselves or licensing one developed by a third party would be <em>ipso facto</em> proof that they are aware their previous models are unsafe. In the US product liability arena is there really such a paralyzing disincentive for manufacturers to make safety improvements to their products? Does a manufacturer really incur risk by making safety improvements?</p>

<p>In order to avoid this perverse incentive, Rule 407 prohibits the use of subsequent safety measures as evidence for liability:</p>
<blockquote>
<h3>Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures</h3>
<p>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:</p>
<ul>
<li>negligence;</li>
<li>culpable conduct;</li>
<li>a defect in a product or its design; or</li>
<li>a need for a warning or instruction.</li>
</ul>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407</a></p>

<h2>No.</h2>
<p><strong>Quite likely, the manufacturer is increasing their risk if they don’t incorporate known safety improvements</strong></p>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a></p>
<p>Product liability law is nicely summarized <a href="https://www.productsafety.gov.au/product-safety-laws/legislation/product-liability" rel="noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<p>With respect to older products it says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Expected levels of safety differ for older products because they cannot be expected to be as safe as brand-new products. Similarly, older models of products would not necessarily be considered defective simply because more recent models have improved safety features.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And, one of the things a court must consider is “the time when the product was supplied” which includes considering what was reasonable practice at that time.</p>
