Joseph Kelly and Cynthia Kelly v. Crown Equipment Company
1992 WL 179784, 970 F.2d 1273 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, applies in strict products liability actions based on a design defect theory. This federal procedural rule governs in diversity cases even when it conflicts with state law that would otherwise admit such evidence.
Facts:
- Joseph Kelly was an employee who operated a stock picker forklift manufactured by Crown Equipment Company.
- The forklift's design included a platform that could be lowered for safe exit.
- Rather than lowering the platform, Kelly jumped from the forklift from a height of approximately two feet.
- As he jumped, an O-ring on his safety belt caught on a ring attached to a pole on the forklift's platform.
- Kelly was jerked backward onto the platform, causing a back injury.
- After the specific forklift was manufactured but before Kelly's accident, Crown Equipment Company altered the design of new stock pickers.
- The new design removed the ring on the pole and added a mechanism that lowered the pole into the platform when an operator entered or exited.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph and Cynthia Kelly (plaintiffs) filed a products liability suit against Crown Equipment Company (defendant).
- The defendant removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant, finding in a special interrogatory that the forklift was not defective.
- The district court entered a judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial 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 a product's design change, made after manufacture but before the plaintiff's accident, to prove a design defect in a strict products liability action?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, Circuit Judge
Yes, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 bars the admission of evidence of a product's post-manufacture, pre-accident design change to prove a design defect in a strict products liability action. The court reasoned that the public policy behind Rule 407—encouraging manufacturers to make safety improvements—applies with equal force to strict liability design defect cases as it does to negligence and failure-to-warn cases. The court reaffirmed its precedent that Rule 407 applies to strict liability actions generally and declined to create a distinction for design defect claims. Citing its prior ruling in Petree I, the court also held that the rule's exclusionary principle extends to remedial measures taken before the accident in question. Furthermore, applying the test from Hanna v. Plumer, the court classified Rule 407 as an 'arguably procedural' rule that governs in a federal diversity action, thereby preempting conflicting Pennsylvania state law that would have allowed the evidence. Finally, the court found the impeachment exception to Rule 407 inapplicable because the evidence of the design change did not directly contradict the defense expert's testimony that the original design was 'excellent and proper,' as he never claimed it was the 'best' or 'only one possible.'
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 407's exclusionary principle to strict products liability design defect claims in federal court. It confirms the supremacy of the Federal Rules of Evidence over conflicting state evidentiary rules in diversity jurisdiction cases, classifying Rule 407 as procedural under the Hanna v. Plumer analysis. The decision also narrowly construes the impeachment exception, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to introduce evidence of subsequent design changes by claiming it contradicts a defense expert's general testimony about a product's quality. This precedent strengthens the position of manufacturers in federal products liability litigation by shielding their safety improvements from being used as evidence of a prior defect.
