Does the prohibition against evidence of subsequent remedial measures apply to government-mandated remedial measures (such as involuntary product recalls)?

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, pin? (1993) (based partly on a reading of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Court repudiates the former _Frye_ general acceptance test for the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal trials; trial judge to act as...The trial court must act as an independent gatekeeper. The trial court can admit expert or scientific evidence only if it finds that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057, 1060-1061 (8th Cir. 2006) ("we conclude that Williams's statements to Officer Lester were nontestimonial. The circumstances, viewed objectively, indicate that the primary purpose of....A statement made to law enforcement personnel during an investigation that focuses on the prevention of future harm rather than on gathering evidence about past facts is generally not "testimonial" and therefore is usually not subject to the constraints imposed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a) ("Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion").A person's character, or propensity, is inadmissible to show that person's conduct on a specific occasion.