Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
STAHL,
STAHL,
William
damages for
arm in
Circuit
Judge.
Circuit
Judge.
_______________
Plaintiffs-appellants
brought this
manufactured
Company").
by defendant-appellee Gene
Following a four-day
action seeking
trial, a
jury returned
that the
saw
court
entered
denied
the
was not
defectively designed.
judgment
for
the
Espeaignnettes'
Company and
post-trial
district
evidence pertaining
abused
its
district
subsequently
motions.
The
evidentiary rulings.
court
The
Because
discretion
we hold that
in
excluding
to the
1990,
Espeaignnette's
employer, the
("Isaacson"), purchased
"edger," designed
a Bottom
and manufactured by
Isaacson
Arbor Gang
the Company.
First,
____________________
1. All references in the opinion
solely to William Espeaignnette.
-22
to "Espeaignnette"
refer
the operator feeds slabs of raw lumber into the edger along a
roller table,
passing
the slabs
through anti-kick
fingers
that prevent the slabs from kicking back towards the operator
as
blades.
After
area surrounding
the anti-kick
fingers and
the infeed
controls
or
listen
occasionally "hang
from
station
the edger
for
strips
up" in the
of
"edged"
saw-blade area.
wood
that
When strips
become stuck in this area, the operator must stop the machine
and clear the work surface or risk damaging the saw blades.
Following
Espeaignnette
was
installation
trained
weeks.
According
to
of
operate
the
the
machine,
edger
to his trial
and
two to
testimony, on October
thought indicated
that a sliver
of wood
had
At this
-33
blades
to investigate.
Espeaignnette
maintained
because
to
do
so
would
needlessly
increase
downtime,
saw-blade area.
so,
lost his
stumbled towards
the edger.
as he stumbled, he reached
He
out with
pulled into
the saw-blade
his right
then severed
edger
to cut
raw
lumber.
the edger
by
In the
continued to use
summer
of
trial, an Isaacson
welding to
it
a steel
1993,
employee
plate
that
covered the open area by the infeed rollers and the anti-kick
fingers.
____________________
2. The Company maintains that the accident occurred because
Espeaignnette purposely, and not inadvertently, stuck his
hand into the area of the infeed rollers to free a piece of
wood.
-44
a theory
was defectively
because of
roller
of strict liability,
and unreasonably
area.
compensation
designed
As co-plaintiff,
for
loss
of
alleging that
Rita
consortium
the
dangerous
from
the
to trial,
the
Company moved
in limine
__ ______
to
by
the
provisionally granted
modification
subsequent
evidence pursuant
that
feasibility
of
the
The
district
remedial
condition
Company.
to Fed.
measure,
Company
such
subject,
excluded the
R. Evid.
407 as
however,
not controvert
modification.3
at
to
the
trial
the
The
____________________
3.
court
court
provisionally
denied
the Espeaignnettes'
motion
and, over
of reports of
other accidents
trial, the
Espeaignnettes raised
at least
court
occurrence.
declined
to
admit
Although eventually
feasibility
had
been
nonetheless excluded
clearly
the
evidence
on
each
issue of
the district
The
court
Fed. R. Evid.
value.4
stating,
The
Espeaignnettes made an
inter alia,
_____ ____
that
they sought
to
offer of
call the
after its
1993 modification
and
of the machine.
During
trial, the
Espeaignnettes' objections
denied the
____________________
4.
relevant,
evidence
may
be
excluded if its
probative value
is
substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair
prejudice,
confusion of
the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of
time,
or
needless
presentation
of
cumulative evidence.
-66
to that
as an expert
in "industrial human
witness's testimony
factors"
concerning whether
it was
the edger as
he alleged.
Following
closing
arguments,
was
"in
dangerous."
and,
form.
a
court
as a series of questions on a
The first
defective
the district
question was
condition
and
whether the
unreasonably
district court's
oral
instructions, proceeded
no
further.
and assumption
court
entered
of risk.
judgment
for
Subsequently,
the
Company
and
the district
denied
the
Espeaignnettes
evidentiary rulings.
erred
in (1)
Isaacson's
They
error
excluding under
installation
assign
of the
Rule 403
fixed
to
three
district court
evidence concerning
metal
guard on
the
by the Company,
-77
"industrial
human
factors" and
permitting
the
witness to
We
begin
considerable
latitude
exclude evidence
Rico, Ltd. v.
___________
1994).
by
We
in
that a
20 F.3d
rulings
court
to
See, e.g.,
___ ____
Rubbermaid, Inc.,
________________
these
district
determining whether
review
discretion.
noting
admit or
Newell Puerto
_____________
15, 21
only
has
for
(1st Cir.
an
abuse
of
record,
reverse
a district
court's
on-the-spot
v. Package Mach.
_____________
review, however,
not
completely
without
is
deserving significant
improper factor is
weight
relied upon,
weighing them."
is
ignored,
or when all
when
an
proper and
no
of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927,
________________
__________________________
929 (1st Cir. 1988).
-88
The
abused
its
evidence
Espeaignnettes argue
discretion in
regarding
that the
excluding
Isaacson's
district court
pursuant
to Rule
modification of
found
the
403
edger.
court incorrectly
that the
danger
of unfair
prejudice outweighed
probative value
of the
evidence.
The
the
Espeaignnettes argue
of
strict
district court
prejudice.
and
liability
vastly
under
Maine
overestimated the
law and
that
danger
of
the
unfair
the facts
and circumstances
surrounding this
Espeaignnettes tried
their claim
case, we
agree.5
The
Company
statute.6
pursuant
solely
to
Maine's
against the
strict
liability
statute, a plaintiff
must prove
____________________
5.
user to
an
of
harm."
exposing
Stanley
_______
v.
(Me. 1988).
To determine whether a
St.
___
Germain,
_______
544
A.2d
at 1285.
Under
this
defective design
[the
design,
product's]
feasibility of
the risk
safer alternatives."7
of
the
test, proof
of
the utility of
design
and the
Stanley, 462
_______
A.2d at
____________________
to his property, if the seller is engaged
in the business of selling such a product
and it is expected to and does reach the
user or
consumer without significant
change in the condition in which it is
sold. This section applies although the
seller has exercised all possible care in
the preparation and sale of his product
and the user or consumer has not bought
the product from or entered into any
contractual relation with the seller.
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14,
221.
1148.
practical (i.e.,
placing a physical guard over the opening did not inhibit the
operation
of
the edger).
Moreover,
this evidence
bears
It
of the alternate
guard).
Therefore,
the
danger
of
unfair
prejudice
substantially
31, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1990) (reversing exclusion under Rule 403
in products liability action
have been
design.
created
by
the
alternative
evidence "[went]
Cf.
___
of the case").
Evidence
________
the
introduction
of the
evidence,
[Rule
the
permitted
the
fact
expert
that
to
the
court
testify to
the
possibility
of the excluded
evidence.
The
of
diminish the
Company did
fact that it
theoretically
did vigorously
practical.
dispute
whether such
guard would
be
excluded evidence
normal operation of
tends to show
directly
____________________
8. Answering why he chose not to include a physical guard
over the open area of the edger where Espeaignnette was
injured, Tierney testified:
Utility of the machine.
I have found,
almost without exception, that where you
have a guard bolted on, hinged, pinned
on, even clipped, they'll take it off
first time and it stays off.
Then you
have that whole opening exposed.
Q.
You didn't put a guard because you
were afraid someone would take it off?
A.
I'm saying you use the utility of
that machine, how long do you anticipate
it would take to take the guard off
-1212
____________________
assuming they
would that --
did put
Q.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
it
back?
What
In his opening
supplied).
In addition,
the
Company's counsel
argued at closing:
This machine had to be designed to keep
this downtime to a minimum.
-1313
and therefore
Tierney
would
and Professor
hypothetical
have rebutted
Barnett
assertions
much more
by
the
of the
the testimony
effectively
Espeaignnettes'
of
than
expert
witness.
Not only
the probative
the
that "[a]ll
evidence is
690.
therefore,
prejudice."
is
The
appropriate
whether
See
___
the
Swajian,
_______
prejudicial; elsewise,
to offer it."
inquiry
evidence
916
it also overestimated
meant to be
be unlikely
incorrectly gauge
F.2d
under
results
at
34.
Daigle,
______
Rule
in
14
403,
"unfair
"`Unfair
____________________
. . .
And I want you to think just for a
moment about some testimony relative to
the jams when the slab goes in and gets
really
hung
up
in those
rollers.
(Gesturing) To get that slab out, you're
going to have to go into the area between
the in-feed rollers and the kickback
fingers.
If you open up the machine and go in
this way, you're only getting one end of
it.
You're not getting the major jam,
which is where -- the in-feed rollers and
the antikickback fingers.
You had to
___________
have access in that area.
________________________
(Emphasis supplied).
prejudice'
on an
improper basis,
emotional one."
Fed R.
necessarily, an
In
its final
trial
ruling,
the
district
court
district
(if at
exception
to
impact
whether
would
it
feasibility
all)
Rule
prejudicial
court
only to
407.
of
the
show
(e.g. negligence
or
to
Therefore,
evidence
may
fact
that
have tended
liability" rather
in
the
something
product
the
court
examined
more
than just
liability).
As
the Company,
Rule 407.
the
to
as
under an
weighing
exclusion under
the
evidence
show feasibility
evidence,
the
Therefore,
tend to
viewed
See supra
___ _____
Espeaignnettes'
show
"negligence or
-1515
note 5.
proffered
product
not, by itself,
constitute an improper
use of the
its
once the
analysis is
conducted outside
the excluded
edger was
manufactured.
The
design developed
Hence,
it was
not
See,
___
of
v.
Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883, 889 (5th Cir. 1983) (design
__________________
changes
developed after
_________
question are
at
a
the manufacture
accident.
guard
could
of the
been
of the design
Company, however,
have
product in
two years
does not
installed
at
after the
contend
the
that a
time
of
not
at the
time of manufacture.
Furthermore, the Company's failure in
illustrate how
the
excluded evidence
would
its brief to
be
"unfairly"
The Company
-1616
misleading
to
the
jury
because
Isaacson
was a different
than the
removable guard).
the
guard
type of guard
installed
by
(a permanent guard)
Espeaignnettes' expert (a
that is
properly accorded
to a
the substantial
district court's
F.2d at 6).
Kassel, 875
______
The question
________
is not whether we would strike the balance differently in the
first instance, but whether the balance actually struck is so
egregiously
one-sided
that
it
requires
reversal.
Our
____________________
9. We also note that in its provisional ruling before trial,
the district court excluded the evidence under Rule 407, but
added, "I am more concerned, frankly, with prejudicial impact
that that kind
of evidence would have
on the jury;
specifically, that portion of the evidence which indicates
that the same machine, at the same place, in the same
factory, was in fact remedied to prevent this kind of
accident."
The district court did not reiterate this
reasoning when it excluded the evidence under Rule 403.
In
any event, we are unconvinced that the fact that the evidence
concerned the specific edger involved in the accident evokes
any special degree of unfair prejudice in this case.
______
-1717
in a
in an accident.
The
had been
drinking prior
to the
that
its
prejudicial
probative value.
On
far
outweigh
its
Id. at 34.
___
appeal, we
impact would
reversed, criticizing
failure in
the district
403 balance
to
is
unfairly prejudicial.
________
stressed that
the evidence
Id.
___
at
in
on an
35.
Swajian, the
_______
evidence
essential element
of the
Moreover, we
because it
Id.
___
excluded here
bore
plaintiff's prima
____________________
10.
Even though
_______
review of the district court's balancing of probative value
against prejudicial impact, Swajian, 916 F.2d at 34, which,
_______
in turn, supports a conclusion that the district court abused
its discretion in striking the balance in this case.
-1818
facie case.
this
case, we
Swajian was
_______
think that
the risk
of unfair
prejudice in
In Swajian,
_______
a real
danger undoubtedly existed that the jury would have taken the
evidence of the
at
fault and
whether
not
or not
contrast, as
the axle
compensation, regardless
failure caused
the accident.
of
In
case and
remote.
of unfair prejudice
was extremely
abused
determination that
in striking
empowered
to
evidentiary ruling
the district
the Rule
court abused
not,
notice
error
in
district
court's
of the party
____________________
11. We further note that the cases on which the Company
relies to
support excluding the
evidence are clearly
distinguishable. See Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 981
___ ________
____________________
F.2d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir. 1992) (negligence and breach of
warranty action, evidence offered to impeach only); Raymond,
_______
938 F.2d at 1523-24 (feasibility stipulated and design
modification developed after manufacture of product); Grenada
_______
Steel, 695 F.2d at 888-89 (feasibility clearly not contested
_____
and design changes developed years after manufacture of
product).
-1919
is affected."
61.
In
determining whether
an
error affected
party's
substantial right,
is whether
this
court can say with fair assurance . . . that the judgment was
not substantially swayed
by the error."
42, 46
F.2d
(1st
Lubanski v. Coleco
________
______
Cir. 1991)
(internal
quotations omitted).
The exclusion of the proffered
considered
harmless.
pertains to
As
noted,
testimony cannot be
the
evidence
directly
unreasonably dangerous at
that its
jury's decision on
this point.
Furthermore, the only issue the jury considered was
whether the edger was unreasonably dangerous.
the court's instructions, the
that
the
edger
unreasonably
was
not
dangerous."
subsequent questions on
"in
The
defective
jury
exclusion of
the
did
condition
not
answer
In accord with
and
the
concerning
As a result, because
evidence undermined
the jury's
sole
condition, it
-2020
The
erred in
admitting evidence
accidents
involving edgers
Espeaignnettes argue
strict
failed
evidence.
argued this
side
to establish
an initial
issue before
discussed the
evidence is irrelevant
in a
the alternative,
proper
that the
foundation for
court
controlled by state
of the
the
Normally,
and in
law.
their
Neither
of
the Federal
240, 245-46
both parties
Federal Rules
diversity action,
note that
the district
applicability
Nevertheless, it
whether evidence
1101.
The
matter, we
as though it were
Evidence.
Company.
and, in
by the
of similar
briefs
designed
that this
liability action
Company
admissible in a
Rules of Evidence
supply the
the Espeaignnettes'
Fed. R.
failure to
Evid.
argue the
correct
applicable standard
issue.
Because we
are
however,
we will proceed to
would
effect a
remanding the
waiver of
the
issue
for retrial,
as it arises
to
certain limitations,
all
evidence is
nonexistence of a disputed
than it would
R. Evid. 401,
-2121
402.
As
we have
discussed earlier,
a district
court may
probative value
Fed. R. Evid.
403.
In general, courts have recognized that the absence
of prior accidents may be admissible to show:
(1)
absence of the defect or other
condition alleged,
(2) the lack of a causal relationship
between the injury and the defect or
condition charged, [and]
(3)
the
nonexistence of
an unduly
dangerous situation.
Strong, 1 McCormick on Evidence
______________________
we
200 at 850-51.
Moreover,
products liability
case brought
on a
See also
___ ____
at 27, 30
negligence theory.
25, 30 (1st Cir.
94-1136, slip
to find
design
defect or
causation in
negligence
case).12
____________________
12. The Espeaignnettes argue, however, that even if the
absence of prior accidents would be relevant in a negligence
case, the district court should still have excluded the
-2222
The evidence
clearly
The
relevant to
of the absence of
several disputed
issues in
this case.
accidents tends to
similar reports
disprove causation.
of injuries due to
prior accidents is
no
he alleged.
whether the
edger as designed
was unreasonably
dangerous.
The Espeaignnettes alternatively
Company
failed to
admission
for
establish
of the evidence.
the most
part, that
the
contend that
the
necessary foundation
for
A review of
evidence of
the absence
of prior
the
"lack of
accidents was
in regard
to
those
surrounding
the
machine
at
the
time
similar
of
the
____________________
evidence because the issue here turns solely on principles of
strict liability.
This argument is not persuasive because
the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court has recognized
that
negligence and strict liability causes of action both share
the same elements of causation and defective design.
See
___
Marois v. Paper Converting Mach. Co., 539 A.2d 621, 623 (Me.
______
__________________________
1988) (causation) and Stanley, 462 A.2d at 1148 (defective
___ _______
design).
-2323
accident."
Klonowski v.
_________
admission
of
irrelevant
excluding relevant
evidence
under
Rule
402,
11
F.3d 259,
264
(1st
Cf.
___
Fusco v.
_____
Cir.
1993)
403").
In
any
turns
on the
event, the
facts and
determination of
circumstances of
district judge.
See
___
appended to Rule
admissibility
each case
and is
United States v.
_____________
Brandon, 17 F.3d
_______
to
accidents, Tierney
testifying
infeed-roller design.
edger
district
similarity,
that
the
similar
1976, his
company
manufactured by
attention.
court
lack of
designed and
come to his
the
about
While
might
that
evidence of
the
the Company
would have
in different circumstances
require
we think
involving an
more
to
show
Tierney's testimony
absence of
other
sufficient
established
accidents was
-2424
admissible
in
Espeaignnettes'
this case.
counsel
during cross-examination,
Furthermore, we
soundly
attacked
note
this
that the
testimony
situated so as
to prevent accidental
contact with
court
improperly
witness to testify
Espeaignnette
to
final
complaint is
permitted the
that it was
stumble and
that
Company's
expert
into
the
the
edger as
for
he
contended.
Company's
as an
"industrial human
factors" expert in
-- was an
machine design.
-- how
the
We do not agree.
to testify
as an
a given
court.
expert on
subject and
to the trier
of the trial
-2525
United States
______________
v. Sepulveda,
_________
15 F.3d
1161, 1183
(1st Cir.
1993) (quoting Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31,
_____
_______________________
35 (1962)), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2714 (1994); but compare
_____ ______
___ _______
Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 282 (1st Cir. 1993) (stating
________
______
standard of review is abuse of discretion).
A review of Professor
reveals
that,
although
he
little
in the field.
formal
education
Rather
not
to place
a physical
guard
on the
of causation.
discretion in either
edger and
The district
accepting the
Conclusion
Conclusion
__________
For the
entered
the judgment
a new trial.
-2626