Wood v. Morbark Industries, Inc.
43 Fed. R. Serv. 269, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35918, 70 F.3d 1201 (1995)
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, applies to strict products liability cases. However, such evidence becomes admissible for impeachment purposes when a defendant makes superlative claims about a product's safety or otherwise 'opens the door' by creating a misleading impression that the product's design has not changed.
Facts:
- On February 2, 1989, Ginger Wood was killed while operating an 'Eeger Beever' wood chipper manufactured by Morbark Industries, Inc.
- The wood chipper had a seventeen-inch infeed chute, which Ruby Wood, the victim's wife, alleged was defectively and unreasonably short.
- Ginger Wood was pulled into the machine, and his head, arms, and upper torso were ablated by the chipper's knives.
- After the accident, Morbark began manufacturing and selling wood chippers with a longer infeed chute.
- During the trial, Morbark's counsel suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers had ordered machines 'just like the one' involved in the accident.
- Norvel Morey, Morbark's president and the machine's designer, testified that the seventeen-inch chute was 'the safest length chute you could possibly put on the machine.'
Procedural Posture:
- Ruby Wood originally filed a lawsuit against Morbark Industries, Inc. in Florida state court.
- Morbark removed the action to the United States District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court granted Morbark's pretrial motion in limine to exclude evidence of Morbark's post-accident extension of the wood chipper's infeed chute.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant, Morbark.
- Wood filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings during trial.
- The district court denied Wood's motion for a new trial.
- Wood, as appellant, appealed the denial of the motion for a new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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, which generally excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures, apply in strict products liability cases to bar evidence of post-accident design changes, and does a defendant 'open the door' to the admission of such evidence for impeachment by making superlative claims about the product's safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Birch, Circuit Judge
Yes, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies in strict products liability cases, and a defendant does open the door to the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures for impeachment by making superlative claims about the product's safety. The court held as a matter of first impression that Rule 407 applies in strict products liability actions to focus the jury on the product's condition at the time of the accident. However, Morbark opened the door to evidence of the design change in two ways: first, by creating the misleading impression that the machine design had not been modified, and second, when its president, Norvel Morey, made the superlative claim that the original seventeen-inch chute was the 'safest length' possible. This testimony made the subsequent design change relevant for impeachment. The trial court correctly allowed some rebuttal testimony but then committed reversible error with its sweeping admonition to the jury to disregard all evidence of the longer chute, which nullified the properly admitted impeachment evidence and substantially prejudiced Wood's case. Therefore, a new trial is required.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the majority of federal circuits in applying Federal Rule of Evidence 407 to strict products liability cases, enhancing uniformity in federal evidentiary standards. The case's primary significance, however, lies in its clear articulation of how the impeachment exception operates. It establishes that a defendant's use of superlatives like 'safest' or 'best' to describe a product's design at the time of an accident constitutes opening the door to evidence of subsequent remedial measures. This precedent serves as a crucial strategic check on defense tactics, forcing defendants to be cautious with their testimonial claims to avoid triggering the admission of otherwise prejudicial evidence of safety improvements.
Unlock the full brief for Wood v. Morbark Industries, Inc.