Rose Carota v. Johns Manville Corp.
893 F.2d 448, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 708, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 311 (1990)
Rule of Law:
In a diversity action, when state law embodies a substantive policy requiring the jury to hear evidence of out-of-court settlements for the purpose of determining damage awards and preventing double recovery, federal courts must apply the state rule, even if it conflicts with Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
Facts:
- In 1982, Elio Carota and his wife, Rosa Carota, initiated a lawsuit regarding Elio's illness, allegedly asbestosis.
- Elio Carota died in 1986, purportedly from asbestosis.
- Rosa Carota subsequently amended the complaint to account for her husband's death.
- Prior to the trial, Rosa Carota settled her claims against several original defendants for a total of $98,471.
- The Celotex Corp. remained the sole defendant facing Rosa Carota at trial.
- Celotex Corp. sought to introduce the amount of Mrs. Carota’s prior settlements with other defendants as evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Elio Carota and Rosa Carota commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 1982.
- After Elio Carota's death in 1986, Rosa Carota amended the complaint.
- By the start of the trial in November 1988, Mrs. Carota had settled with all original defendants except The Celotex Corp.
- At the beginning of the trial, The Celotex Corp. moved the district court to introduce evidence of Mrs. Carota’s settlements with other defendants.
- The district court granted Celotex’s motion, allowing the stipulated settlement amount of $98,471 to be published to the jury and appear on the general verdict form.
- The jury returned a verdict for The Celotex Corp.
- Mrs. Carota appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that the admission of settlement evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
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 408 preclude a federal court sitting in diversity from admitting evidence of a plaintiff's prior out-of-court settlements with other joint tortfeasors when state law allows such evidence to be presented to the jury for the purpose of preventing double recovery in damage awards?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Circuit Judge
No, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 does not preclude a federal court sitting in diversity from admitting evidence of a plaintiff's prior out-of-court settlements with other joint tortfeasors when state law allows such evidence to be presented to the jury for the purpose of preventing double recovery in damage awards. The court affirmed the district court's decision, applying the principle from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins that federal courts in diversity cases apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. The court acknowledged that the admissibility of out-of-court settlement evidence falls into a 'twilight zone' between substance and procedure, where traditional Erie analysis might not fully resolve the conflict. However, relying on Ricciardi v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center, the court determined that the federal rule should not displace the state rule if it impinges on a substantive state policy. Massachusetts law, particularly as articulated in Tritsch v. Boston Edison Company, established a substantive policy to prevent double recovery by allowing defendants to present settlement evidence to the jury, enabling the jury to adjust their verdict. The court reasoned that this state law specifically intended the jury to hear such evidence as part of its function to determine damages. To withhold this information from the jury and merely deduct it post-verdict, as Mrs. Carota suggested, would 'deprive the jury of their state law entitlement to hear the evidence, thwart the rationales behind Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decisions, and usurp from that court the power to formulate its own policies and to give force to its own law.' Therefore, because Massachusetts law reflects a substantive policy that explicitly grants juries the opportunity to hear settlement evidence to affect damage awards, the federal court was bound to apply that state law.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Erie doctrine in diversity cases, especially concerning issues that do not neatly fit into the substantive/procedural dichotomy. It establishes that a federal rule of evidence, typically considered procedural, must yield to a state rule if the state rule is found to embody a substantive state policy, such as preventing double recovery or defining the jury's role in assessing damages. The ruling emphasizes a nuanced approach to Erie, requiring courts to assess whether a federal rule would 'impinge on some substantive state policy embodied in the state rule,' thus limiting the preclusive effect of federal procedural rules when they conflict with deeply rooted state substantive rights or judicial functions.
