Hyjek v. Anthony Industries
133 Wash.2d 414 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Washington Evidence Rule 407, which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, also applies in strict products liability actions to bar evidence of such measures being used to prove a design defect.
Facts:
- In 1990, K2 Corporation marketed the 'Dan Donnelly XTC' snowboard, which was sold without predrilled holes or bindings.
- The design required customers to affix their preferred bindings by screwing coarse threaded screws directly into a fiberglass retention plate in the snowboard's core.
- Gary Hyjek purchased a Dan Donnelly XTC snowboard.
- On March 24, 1991, while Hyjek was using the snowboard, a binding came loose from the board, which then struck and injured his ankle.
- In 1992, K2 began to design and implement a new binding system that used 'through-core inserts' molded into the snowboard, into which fine threaded screws were screwed.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Hyjek sued Anthony Industries (as parent of K2) in a Washington state trial court, claiming the snowboard had a design defect.
- K2 filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of its subsequent design change pursuant to Evidence Rule 407.
- The trial court granted K2's motion.
- A jury returned a special verdict in favor of K2.
- Hyjek (appellant) appealed the trial court's evidentiary ruling to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One.
- The Washington Supreme Court accepted certification from the Court of Appeals to hear the case.
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 Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 407, which prohibits the admission of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, apply to a strict products liability claim for design defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Madsen, J.
Yes. Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 407 applies to actions based in strict liability and excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures. The public policy of encouraging manufacturers to take safety precautions is served by freeing them from the fear that such steps will be used against them in a lawsuit, regardless of whether the claim is for negligence or strict liability. The court reasoned that the distinction between focusing on the defendant's conduct (negligence) and the product (strict liability) is 'hypertechnical' because the suit is ultimately against the manufacturer. Furthermore, Washington's Product Liability Act requires evaluating a product's design 'at the time of manufacture,' and admitting evidence of later changes could confuse the jury by diverting its attention from the relevant time period.
Dissenting - Talmadge, J.
No. Evidence Rule 407 should not have been used to exclude the evidence of the subsequent design change. The plain language of ER 407 limits its application to 'negligence or culpable conduct,' which does not encompass strict liability's focus on the product itself. Even if the rule generally applies, the evidence was admissible under an exception to prove the 'practicality' of an alternative design, a key element of the plaintiff's case under the Washington Product Liability Act. While K2 conceded the alternative design was 'feasible,' it did not concede it was 'practical,' and the fact that K2 later adopted the design is highly relevant to proving its practicality at the time of manufacture.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Washington state law with the majority of federal circuits by extending the exclusionary rule for subsequent remedial measures to strict products liability cases. It prioritizes the public policy of encouraging safety improvements over the potential probative value of such evidence for plaintiffs. The ruling solidifies the principle that liability should be assessed based on the circumstances at the time of manufacture, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to use a manufacturer's later improvements as an implicit admission of a prior defect. This forces plaintiffs in design defect cases to rely more heavily on expert testimony and evidence of what was technologically feasible and practical at the time the product was made.
