URL-provided case (name will be extracted)
995 F.2d 343 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures, such as warning labels placed on a product after a plaintiff's last exposure, is inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 407 to prove negligence or culpable conduct, unless the feasibility of such measures is genuinely controverted by the defendant.
Facts:
- Starting in 1957, Martin McPadden served in the Navy aboard the U.S.S. Willis A. Lee, working as a fireman striker and machinist's mate, where he was exposed to asbestos, including John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.'s (Crane) encapsulated asbestos valve packing.
- From 1962 to 1968, McPadden worked for Consolidated Edison at the Astoria and Ravenswood Powerhouses, during which time he continued to use Crane valve packing at Ravenswood.
- After 1968, McPadden worked at various other sites until 1973, where he was exposed to other asbestos products but not those manufactured by Crane.
- Martin McPadden suffered personal injuries as a result of his exposure to asbestos and subsequently died.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin McPadden and his wife Anne filed a diversity action for personal injuries from asbestos exposure, naming John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. and 17 other companies as co-defendants.
- After Martin McPadden died, Anne McPadden, as executrix, amended the complaint to add a wrongful death claim.
- The United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York consolidated over 600 similar asbestos lawsuits, including McPadden's, which alleged exposure at various power-generating stations.
- The trial for the first 48 consolidated cases proceeded on a reverse bifurcated basis, where the jury first determined damages and then liability.
- The jury found that the McPadden family suffered $5,917,781.85 in total damages.
- During the liability phase, McPadden settled with 16 defendants for $1,589,000.00.
- Over Crane's objection, the district court allowed McPadden to read deposition testimony indicating that Crane began placing warning labels on its asbestos-containing products in the early 1980s, which was after McPadden's last exposure to Crane's products.
- The jury reached a liability verdict, finding Crane 10% responsible for McPadden's death.
- Crane filed post-trial motions, including an argument that the admission of the warning label evidence violated Fed.R.Evid. 407.
- The district court denied Crane's post-trial motions, rejecting the Fed.R.Evid. 407 argument, and entered a judgment for McPadden against Crane for $1,562,725.40, plus interest.
- Crane appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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:
Did the district court err by admitting evidence that a defendant placed warning labels on its product after the plaintiff's last exposure, when the defendant did not controvert the feasibility of such warnings?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court erred by admitting evidence of subsequent warning labels because feasibility was not a controverted issue, making the evidence inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 407. Rule 407 generally prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, and this rule applies to both negligence and strict liability product actions. While an exception allows such evidence to prove 'feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted,' the record clearly showed that Crane did not argue it was unable to issue a warning. Instead, Crane vigorously denied that its product required a warning or was defective without one. Since feasibility was not genuinely disputed, the exception did not apply, and admitting testimony that Crane began placing warnings in the early 1980s—more than 12 years after McPadden’s last exposure to Crane’s product—constituted prejudicial error. Given that the same jury heard both the damages and liability phases of the bifurcated trial, a new trial on all issues, including damages, is the appropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict application of Federal Rule of Evidence 407, particularly the 'feasibility if controverted' exception. It establishes that merely denying a product's defectiveness or the necessity of a warning is insufficient to open the door to evidence of subsequent remedial measures under this exception; the defendant must actively contend that the corrective action was impossible or impractical. The ruling emphasizes the policy behind Rule 407, which encourages manufacturers to make safety improvements without fear of those improvements being used as an admission of prior fault. Furthermore, the decision highlights that a prejudicial evidentiary error in one phase of a bifurcated trial, especially where the same jury decided both phases, may necessitate a complete new trial on all issues to prevent injustice.
