Diehl v. Blaw-Knox
360 F.3d 426 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which bars the admission of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or product defect, does not apply to remedial measures taken by a non-party to the lawsuit.
Facts:
- In 1970, Blaw-Knox manufactured a 'road widener' machine with exposed rear wheels and a front-mounted backup alarm.
- A construction company, IA Construction, Inc. ('IA'), owned and used this machine for road work.
- On May 24, 1999, Timothy Diehl, an employee of IA, was working near the road widener when it reversed without him noticing.
- One of the machine's exposed rear wheels struck Diehl's ankle, trapping and severely crushing his lower leg.
- Shortly after the accident, IA, which was not a party to the subsequent lawsuit, modified the machine by enclosing the rear wheels, moving the backup alarm to the rear, and adding warning signs to prevent similar accidents.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Diehl and his wife sued the manufacturer, Blaw-Knox, in the U.S. District Court, alleging the road widener was defectively designed.
- Prior to trial, Blaw-Knox filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that Diehl's employer, IA, modified the machine after the accident.
- The District Court granted Blaw-Knox's motion, excluding the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and, alternatively, under Rule 403 for being confusing to the jury.
- The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Blaw-Knox.
- The Diehls, as appellants, appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 407 bar the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a non-party to prove a product defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Circuit Judge.
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 does not bar evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a non-party because the public policy underlying the rule is not implicated. The rule's purpose is to encourage potential defendants to improve safety without fearing that those improvements will be used as evidence of prior fault. This policy concern disappears when the entity taking the remedial measures is a non-party, as the admission of such evidence will not expose the non-party to liability and therefore will not discourage them from making safety improvements. The court also held that under Rule 403, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial or confusing because the feasibility of the design changes at the time of manufacture was undisputed, making the evidence highly probative of a defect.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Third Circuit with every other federal circuit court that has addressed the issue, solidifying a uniform national interpretation of Rule 407. By establishing that the rule's exclusionary principle does not extend to non-parties, the court significantly aids plaintiffs in products liability cases. Plaintiffs can now more easily introduce powerful evidence that a product was defective by showing how a third-party owner later modified it for safety. The ruling clarifies that the rule's policy is narrowly focused on not discouraging potential defendants themselves, rather than creating a broad prohibition on all post-accident remedial evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Diehl v. Blaw-Knox