Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
981 F.2d 25 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is generally inadmissible to prove negligence. A trial court has discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude such evidence even when offered for a permissible purpose like impeachment if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Benjamin Harrison used a Craftsman 6 1/8 inch Jointer-Planer, which was purchased from Sears, Roebuck & Co. and manufactured by Emerson Electric Company.
- While using the jointer for carpentry work at his home, Harrison sustained injuries to two fingers on his left hand.
- Harrison alleged that his hand slipped from the on-off switch and entered an unguarded opening, where his fingers made contact with the machine's moving cutter blades.
- After Harrison's injury, Emerson Electric Company participated in a subsequent redesign of the jointer model which eliminated the opening in question.
- Benjamin Harrison later died from an illness unrelated to the injuries sustained from the jointer.
Procedural Posture:
- Benjamin and Rosalind Harrison (Plaintiffs) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck & Co. in federal district court, alleging negligence and breach of warranty.
- The Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add the manufacturer, Emerson Electric Company, as a defendant.
- Following Benjamin Harrison's death, his son, Frederick Harrison, was substituted as plaintiff.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, Sears and Emerson, after specifically finding that the plaintiff was not injured in the manner he claimed.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied.
- The Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a subsequent remedial measure, offered for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, when the court determines under Rule 403 that the evidence's probative value for impeachment is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Brody, District Judge
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a subsequent remedial measure offered for impeachment when it determines the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 generally prohibits the use of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, with an exception for other purposes, such as impeachment. However, the court warned that this impeachment exception must not be used as a 'subterfuge to prove negligence or culpability.' The trial court must exercise its discretionary authority under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to balance the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice. In this case, the expert's statement that the area was not hazardous was only indirectly contradicted by the subsequent design change. The court found that admitting evidence of the redesign to impeach this statement would be highly prejudicial, as it could lead the jury to improperly infer negligence, thereby undermining the core policy of Rule 407. Given the indirect nature of the impeachment and the high risk of prejudice, the trial court's decision to exclude the evidence was not an abuse of its considerable discretion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical interaction between Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which governs subsequent remedial measures, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which allows exclusion of prejudicial evidence. It establishes that the impeachment exception in Rule 407 is not an automatic pass for admissibility; the evidence must still survive a Rule 403 balancing test. The decision reinforces the significant deference given to trial judges in making evidentiary rulings and sets a high bar for admitting subsequent remedial measures for impeachment. Litigants must demonstrate a direct contradiction between a witness's testimony and the subsequent measure, rather than a general or indirect one, to overcome the inherent prejudice of such evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.