Friedman v. National Presto Industries, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York
566 F. Supp. 762, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15916, 13 Fed. R. Serv. 1948 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures only if the defendant explicitly controverts or disputes that feasibility; otherwise, such evidence is excluded to prevent unfair prejudice and avoid discouraging safety improvements.

Facts:

Defendant National Presto manufactured a specific model of pressure cooker in 1970.
Plaintiff Saundra Friedman utilized this pressure cooker on May 20, 1978.
During use, the cover of the pressure cooker blew off.
Plaintiff sustained injuries resulting from the incident.
In 1979, subsequent to the accident, Defendant manufactured a newer model of the pressure cooker.
The 1979 model incorporated a locking device designed to secure the cover while the vessel was pressurized, a feature absent in the 1970 model.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed a products liability lawsuit against Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff asserted theories of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability for defective design, and failure to warn.
Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the 1979 pressure cooker model and to exclude legal issues regarding warnings.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is evidence of a product redesign implemented after an accident admissible in a strict liability design defect case to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures under Federal Rules of Evidence 407 and 403?

Opinions:

Majority - Nickerson

Yes, but only if the defendant explicitly disputes the feasibility of the safer design. The court reasoned that Federal Rule of Evidence 407 generally excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures (like the 1979 redesign) to prove negligence or culpable conduct. This policy exists to encourage manufacturers to improve product safety without fear that those improvements will be used against them as admissions of guilt. However, the Rule contains an exception: such evidence is admissible to prove 'feasibility of precautionary measures' if that issue is 'controverted.' Therefore, if the Defendant argues at trial that it was not technologically or economically possible to include a locking device in 1970, the Plaintiff may introduce the 1979 model to prove it was possible. If the Defendant admits feasibility or simply does not dispute it, the evidence remains excluded to prevent unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

Analysis:

This decision elucidates the strategic interplay between Federal Rules of Evidence 407 and 403 in product liability litigation. It places the burden of exclusion on the defendant's trial strategy; the defense must effectively stipulate to the 'feasibility' of a safer design to keep the damaging evidence of a redesign away from the jury. The court also clarifies that even in 'strict liability' cases under New York law, the concept of 'culpability' remains relevant due to the risk-utility balancing test used for design defects, meaning Rule 407's protections still apply. This prevents plaintiffs from automatically bypassing the exclusionary rule simply by pleading strict liability rather than negligence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Friedman v. National Presto Industries, Inc. (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"