The rule limiting admissibility of subsequent remedial measures does not extend to remedial measures that are offered to show a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, a need for a warning or instruction, or other matters falling short of negligence or culpable conduct.

Fed. R. Evid. 407 ("This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.").A subsequent remedial measure is not barred by the rule limiting admissibility of subsequent remedial measures if the subsequent remedial measure is offered to impeach a witness or to show any matter (such as ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures) other than negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction; but a subsequent remedial measure may be used to show feasibility of precautionary measures only if feasibility has been controverted.

United States v. Handy, 668 F.2d 407, 408 (8th Cir. 1982) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the statements of certain co-conspirators against defendant because "[t]he court consider[ed]....A statement by a co-conspirator of a party is not barred by the hearsay rule from being admitted against the party if the statement was made by the co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

See Babcock v. General Motors Corp., 299 F.3d 60, 66 (1st Cir. 2002) (affirming lower court ruling permitting plaintiff to introduce testimony that decedent had habit of using seat belt when driving car, where plaintiff had sought to advance theory that decedent had buckled seat belt before fatal...The habit of a natural person is admissible to show the person's conduct on a particular occasion.