With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which it relates. Thus, when the affirmative defense of comparative negligence is raised, a negligence claim and the affirmative defenses of comparative and/or contributory negligence are inextricably intertwined.”). In a case raising the same issue as the one before us, the Kansas Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: The process of determining comparative fault, when only two parties are involved, is a “zero sum game.” When negligence is moved out of the plaintiffs column, it must move into the defendant’s column. Evidence that tends to exculpate plaintiff in a comparative fault case places fault upon the defendant, and evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to prove negligence is prohibited [by Rule 407]. DiPietro v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 28 Kan. App.2d 372, 16 P.3d 986, 991 (2000) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 19 We agree with the analysis in DiPie-tro

A: holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue
B: holding that the bar against the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures comes into play only where negligence or other culpable conduct is alleged
C: holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation
D: holding that evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to disprove a plaintiffs comparative fault is inadmissible
D.