Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al.
733 F.2d 463 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which makes evidence of subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, applies in federal diversity cases involving strict products liability claims, even when the relevant state law would permit such evidence.
Facts:
- In 1978, Forrest Flaminio purchased a 'Gold Wing' motorcycle manufactured by Japanese Honda and distributed by American Honda.
- The motorcycle dealer, not Honda, completed the final assembly and installed 'highway pegs' on the vehicle.
- Three days after purchase, Flaminio, after having one or two alcoholic drinks, was driving at night between 50 and 70 mph in a 50 mph zone.
- While passing another car, Flaminio felt a vibration in the front of the motorcycle.
- He attempted to look at the front wheel while his feet were on the highway pegs, an awkward maneuver which likely caused him to lift off the seat.
- The motorcycle began to wobble uncontrollably, ran off the road, and crashed, leaving Flaminio a paraplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- Forrest Flaminio and his wife sued Japanese Honda and American Honda in federal district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaint alleged defective design and failure to warn under both negligence and strict liability theories.
- The trial judge excluded evidence of post-accident design changes made by Honda, applying Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Japanese Honda not liable and American Honda negligent.
- The jury apportioned fault at 70% for Flaminio and 30% for American Honda.
- Pursuant to Wisconsin's comparative negligence statute, which bars recovery if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendant's, the court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The Flaminios (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 apply in a federal diversity action to bar evidence of a defendant's subsequent remedial measures in a strict products liability claim when the governing state law would otherwise admit such evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
Yes, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies in federal diversity actions to bar evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict products liability claims. The rule is a procedural judgment enacted by Congress that is constitutional and applicable in federal courts, even if it conflicts with state substantive policy. First, the court held that there is little practical difference between a negligence standard and a strict liability standard in failure-to-warn cases, as both involve an inquiry into foreseeability and reasonableness, so the district court's refusal to give a separate strict liability instruction was not reversible error. The court's primary analysis focused on Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove fault. The court sided with the majority of circuits, holding that the policy behind Rule 407—to encourage safety improvements by preventing them from being used as evidence of prior fault—is equally applicable in strict liability cases as in negligence cases. Addressing the Erie doctrine conflict, the court concluded that while Rule 407 has substantive effects on incentives, it is fundamentally a procedural rule. It is based on a congressional judgment that juries are prone to overweigh such evidence, which is a procedural concern regarding the accuracy of the adjudicative process. Therefore, as a valid procedural rule enacted by Congress, it governs in federal court diversity actions even when it conflicts with a state's contrary rule.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the majority view that Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to strict products liability claims, resolving an open question in the Seventh Circuit. More significantly, the opinion provides a robust analysis of the Erie doctrine, affirming that congressionally enacted Federal Rules of Evidence can apply in diversity cases even when they conflict with state rules grounded in substantive policy. The court's reasoning—that the rule is procedural because it involves a judgment about jury competence—reinforces the power of federal procedural rules over contrary state law in federal court. This case is frequently cited for its discussion of the blurred line between negligence and strict liability in products cases and for its influential Erie analysis.
Unlock the full brief for Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al.