(C) is correct.

Issue: Whether the evidence of a subsequent remedial measure taken by the defendant is admissible to show that the defendant owned the property at issue.

Rule: Under FRE 407, evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury in contention is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instructions. This is a public policy decision; generally such evidence – that the defendant took corrective measures that makes the harm less likely to occur again – would be admissible as it is relevant. However, the admission of such evidence may tend to prevent the taking of remedial measures (as it would be held against the individual/entity who took such measures). For public safety, such evidence is barred from admission. While evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, it is admissible to show ownership or control. Analysis: Here, there is an issue over the ownership of the tree that caused the injury – the defendant claims the tree was on city property, not his own property. While the plaintiff may not introduce evidence of a subsequent remedial measure in order to show fault, it may be introduced to show ownership over the tree at issue. Thus, the evidence of the defendant cutting down the tree with the chainsaw is admissible to speak to ownership. (C) is correct because the evidence shows ownership of the tree.

(A) is incorrect because the evidence is not being offered to show fault, but rather to prove that the defendant owned the tree in question.

(B) is incorrect because the evidence is being admitted to show ownership of the tree, not to prove that the tree was in need of repair.

(D) is incorrect because the evidence is not being offered to show the tree was rotting.