Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
62 Md. App. 101, 488 A.2d 516 (1985) (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict liability case, evidence of a manufacturer's subsequent remedial measures, such as improvements to product warnings or design, is not admissible to prove that the product was defective or that the manufacturer was engaged in culpable conduct at the time of manufacture.
Facts:
- In 1976, Black and Decker Manufacturing Company manufactured a DeWalt Model No. 780 radial arm saw, which was accompanied by an instruction manual.
- Michael Troja was hired by Robert Krohn to build a bar and borrowed Krohn's saw for the job.
- Troja and Krohn removed the saw from its metal base and stand to transport it, leaving the original guide fence behind.
- After placing the saw on the floor, Troja initially rigged a makeshift fence but later removed it.
- While making a cross-cut, Troja guided a piece of wood into the saw blade with his bare hand, without any guide fence in place, and accidentally amputated his thumb.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Troja sued Black and Decker Manufacturing Company in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (a state trial court) on theories of negligence and strict liability.
- Troja voluntarily withdrew the negligence count prior to trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial judge granted a directed verdict in favor of Black and Decker on the defective design claim.
- The failure to warn claim was submitted to the jury, which found the saw defective but also found the manufacturer did not know of the defect at the time of marketing.
- Based on the jury's findings, the trial judge entered a judgment in favor of Black and Decker.
- Troja (appellant) appealed the judgment to this court, the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a manufacturer's subsequent remedial measures, such as adding stronger warnings to later models, admissible in a strict liability action to prove that the original product's warnings were defective?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, C.J.
No. In a strict liability case, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove culpable conduct. The court adopts the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit in Werner v. Upjohn, which is grounded in the public policy behind Federal Rule of Evidence 407. The primary rationale is that manufacturers would be discouraged from making safety improvements if they knew those improvements could be used against them in lawsuits concerning older products. Admitting such evidence would risk unfairly prejudicing the manufacturer and confusing the jury by shifting focus from the product's condition at the time of manufacture to its condition years later. The evidence is not admissible to show 'feasibility' when the defendant has not contested it, but only argued that the original warning was adequate based on the knowledge available at the time.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a key precedent in Maryland by explicitly adopting the federal rule's exclusionary principle for subsequent remedial measures in strict liability actions. It aligns Maryland with a significant number of jurisdictions that prioritize the public policy of encouraging safety improvements over the potential probative value of such evidence. The ruling clarifies that a manufacturer's decision to enhance a product's safety does not constitute an admission that the earlier version was defective. This holding protects manufacturers from retroactive liability and ensures that juries focus on the state of knowledge and industry standards at the time the product was sold, rather than being biased by later advancements.
Unlock the full brief for Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.