Chlopek v. Federal Insurance
2007 WL 2416520, 499 F.3d 692, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20548 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of other accidents in a products liability case is admissible only if the proponent shows they occurred under substantially similar circumstances. Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove a product was defective if the measure would have made the injury less likely to occur, regardless of the manufacturer's motive for the change.
Facts:
- Denise Chlopek had a history of surgeries on her right big toe, including the implantation of an artificial joint in 1989.
- In 2002, after the artificial joint failed, her podiatrist, Dr. Andrew Pankratz, performed a fusion surgery on her toe.
- Following the surgery, Dr. Pankratz prescribed and applied a Polar Care 300, a continuous cold therapy device manufactured by Breg, Inc., to manage pain and swelling.
- The device had a warning label with several cautions, including advice for prolonged use and for patients with poor circulation, and a recommendation to periodically inspect the skin.
- A discharge nurse gave Chlopek written instructions to use the cold therapy for two weeks. Dr. Pankratz provided no specific usage instructions and admitted he had not read the device's warnings.
- Relying on the nurse's instructions, Chlopek used the Polar Care 300 device continuously for nearly ten days.
- After nine days, Chlopek noticed discoloration on her toes, which was diagnosed as ischemia (decreased blood flow) and tissue damage consistent with a thermal injury.
- The tissue damage was irreversible, leading to the amputation of her entire right big toe.
Procedural Posture:
- Denise and Jaron Chlopek sued Breg, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Eau Claire County, Wisconsin, a state trial court.
- Breg removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
- The district court granted in part Breg's motion in limine to exclude evidence of other injuries and evidence of a subsequent change to the product's warning label.
- The district court, over the plaintiffs' objection, decided to bifurcate the trial, separating the issue of liability from damages.
- A jury trial was held solely on the issue of whether the Polar Care 300 was defective.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that the product was not defective.
- The district court entered judgment for the defendant, Breg.
- The Chlopeks filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The Chlopeks (appellants) appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Breg 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:
Did the district court abuse its discretion and deny the plaintiffs a fair trial by excluding evidence of other similar injuries and a subsequent warning label change, using a bifurcated trial structure and a special verdict form, and making critical remarks to the plaintiffs' counsel in front of the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, Circuit Judge.
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion or deny the plaintiffs a fair trial. The court correctly applied established evidentiary and procedural rules, and its conduct did not rise to the level of reversible error. The court properly excluded evidence of other accidents because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that those incidents occurred under 'substantially similar circumstances,' a necessary foundation for admissibility. Similarly, the exclusion of evidence that Breg later changed the product's warning label was correct under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which bars the use of subsequent remedial measures to prove a product was defective; the manufacturer's motive for the change is irrelevant. The decisions to bifurcate the trial and use a special verdict form were well within the court's discretion to manage the trial efficiently and avoid juror confusion. Finally, while the judge's critical remarks to counsel were 'regrettable,' the single incident did not so impair counsel's credibility as to deprive the Chlopeks of a fair trial, especially in light of mitigating jury instructions.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in managing evidentiary issues, trial structure, and courtroom conduct. It demonstrates the high bar an appellant must clear to secure a new trial, requiring proof of not just an error, but an abuse of discretion that resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial. For products liability litigants, the opinion underscores the stringent requirements of the 'substantially similar circumstances' test for admitting evidence of other accidents. The court's application of Federal Rule of Evidence 407 also clarifies that the rule's prohibition on subsequent remedial measure evidence is not contingent on the defendant's subjective safety-related motive for making the change.
