Cameron v. Otto Bock Orthopedic Industry, Inc.
43 F.3d 14 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, including breach of warranty. Additionally, reports of other product failures are inadmissible to prove a design defect unless the incidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances and are not otherwise barred as hearsay.
Facts:
- In March 1990, William Cameron, who had a prior leg amputation, was fitted with a prosthetic leg.
- The prosthesis included an aluminum pylon and a clamp manufactured by Otto Bock Orthopedic Industry, Inc. ('Otto Bock').
- Otto Bock's instructions warned against overtightening the screw that fastened the pylon to the clamp, but did not provide specific torque measurements.
- On May 28, 1991, the Otto Bock pylon on Cameron's prosthesis broke, causing him to fall and suffer a fractured pelvis.
- After Cameron's accident, Otto Bock received product failure reports from other prosthetists regarding alleged failures of other prosthetic legs.
- Following Cameron's accident, Otto Bock sent letters to its customers specifying the precise torque measurements to be used when attaching the pylon to the clamp.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Kay Cameron (plaintiffs) sued Otto Bock Orthopedic Industry, Inc. (defendant) in federal district court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaint alleged negligence, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- During trial, the district court granted Otto Bock's motions to exclude evidence of post-accident product failure reports and post-accident 'Dear Customer' letters.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Otto Bock.
- The Camerons (appellants) appealed the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Otto Bock as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is evidence of post-accident product failure reports and a defendant's subsequent remedial measures admissible to prove a design defect and breach of warranty?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge
No, the evidence is not admissible. The post-accident product failure reports were properly excluded because they were irrelevant and contained inadmissible hearsay. The reports of other incidents are only relevant to prove a design defect if the incidents occurred under 'substantially similar' circumstances, which the Camerons failed to establish. Furthermore, the reports constituted inadmissible hearsay because the information originated from patients, who are third parties not acting in the course of Otto Bock's business, meaning the reports do not qualify for the business records exception under FRE 803(6). The 'Dear Customer' letters were properly excluded as subsequent remedial measures under FRE 407, which bars evidence of measures taken after an event to prove 'negligence or culpable conduct.' This court's precedent in Raymond v. Raymond Corp. establishes that 'culpable conduct' under FRE 407 includes breach of warranty and strict liability claims. The exceptions for 'feasibility' and 'control' do not apply, as Otto Bock did not controvert either issue at trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 407's prohibition on subsequent remedial measures to product liability cases based on breach of warranty or strict liability, preventing plaintiffs from using a company's safety improvements as an admission of prior fault. It reinforces the 'substantially similar circumstances' requirement for admitting evidence of other accidents, placing a significant burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate comparability. The case also provides a clear example of the limits of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, clarifying that information from an outside source included in a business record does not automatically become admissible.
