Raymond v. Raymond Corp.
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16701, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 1294, 938 F.2d 1518 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a defendant after an accident is inadmissible to prove culpable conduct in strict liability cases. While this rule does not bar evidence of pre-accident design changes or third-party repairs, such evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion.
Facts:
- In 1981, Raymond Corporation manufactured and sold a Model 75 sideloader.
- By 1983, Raymond Corporation was manufacturing a new Model 76 sideloader, which incorporated design changes including a backplate connecting the rear support posts. These designs were on the drawing board before the Model 75 at issue was made.
- On April 9, 1987, Roland Raymond, an employee at Edgcomb Metals, was operating the Model 75 sideloader in the course of his employment.
- While operating the machine, Raymond collided with a steel channel beam protruding into an aisle.
- The beam broke through a rear-corner support post on the sideloader, pierced the operator’s compartment, and struck Raymond.
- Roland Raymond sustained severe injuries and died six days later.
- After the accident, Raymond's employer, Edgcomb Metals, modified the sideloader by adding a backplate and more secure welding.
- An inspection revealed that the support post on the sideloader involved in the accident did not conform to Raymond Corporation's original design specifications regarding its beveled edges and weld thickness.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanne Raymond, on behalf of her husband's estate, sued Raymond Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire for strict product liability.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Raymond Corporation.
- The jury specifically found that the sideloader was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user at the time it was manufactured and sold.
- Plaintiff Raymond filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial.
- The district court denied the plaintiff's motion.
- Plaintiff Raymond, as the appellant, appealed the district court's denial of her post-trial motion to the United States 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:
In a strict products liability case, is evidence of design changes made after a product's manufacture but before an accident, or repairs made by a third party after an accident, admissible to prove the product was defective at the time of sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge
No, while Federal Rule of Evidence 407 may not automatically bar such evidence, a trial court acts within its discretion to exclude it under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. The court first explicitly holds that FRE 407, which bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures, applies to strict liability cases. However, Rule 407 only excludes measures taken after the 'event,' which is the accident itself. Therefore, design changes made before the accident (the Model 76) are not excluded by Rule 407. Similarly, Rule 407 does not apply to repairs made by a third party (Edgcomb), as the policy of encouraging defendants to make safety improvements is not implicated. Despite this, the court found the evidence was properly excluded under FRE 403. The central issue in a strict liability case is whether the product was defective at the time of manufacture and sale. Evidence of later design changes or third-party repairs has low probative value for this question and carries a high risk of confusing the jury or creating unfair prejudice by distracting them from the relevant time frame.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Federal Rules of Evidence 407 and 403 in product liability cases within the First Circuit. By explicitly applying Rule 407 to strict liability claims, it aligns with the majority of other circuits. More significantly, the case establishes that Rule 403 serves as a critical secondary filter, allowing courts to exclude evidence of design changes that Rule 407 does not reach, such as pre-accident changes or third-party modifications. This reinforces the legal principle that a product's condition is to be judged at the time of sale, preventing juries from being misled by later improvements and thereby protecting manufacturers from liability based on hindsight.
