Summary
discussing Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co., 696 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 1997) and finding evidence of the absence of prior, similar accidents not admissible for lack of proper foundation
Summary of this case from Zollars v. Troy-Built, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 02-5371.
October 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion in limine seeking to: (1) preclude the defendants from presenting evidence concerning industry standards; (2) preclude the defendants from referring to other, similar products that may have optional safety features; and (3) preclude the defendants from presenting evidence that the plaintiff's injury was the first of its kind alleged against their product. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. Industry Standards
The plaintiff first seeks to preclude the defendants from presenting evidence concerning industry standards. He argues that Pennsylvania law precludes such evidence in design defect strict product liability cases. The defendants admit that they would like to present evidence of industry standards as a way to prove that their saw was of the highest quality, yet they also concede that the cases the plaintiff cites in support of his motion to preclude them from doing so are valid. The defendants also provide authority to support their contention that the plaintiff or his expert could open the door to such testimony if they mention industry standards in their testimony.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that, in cases of strict product liability, evidence of industry standards improperly injects negligence concepts into the trial and, for this reason, evidence of industry standards is not admissible. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co., Inc., 528 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. 1987). Thus, the plaintiff is correct to argue that the defendants may not introduce evidence of industry standards with respect to his strict product liability claim.
As for the defendants' point, there is authority for the proposition that, if the plaintiff or one of his witnesses, introduces evidence of industry standards during his direct testimony, that would allow the defendants to use evidence of industry standards to cross-examine the witness or to introduce evidence of industry standards during the defendants' case-in-chief. See Markovich v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 805 F.Supp. 1231, 1240 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Further, if the plaintiff introduces evidence of industry standards during cross-examination of a defense witness, that would also allow the defendants to present evidence of industry standards. Absent these circumstances, however, the defendants will not be able to introduce evidence of industry standards.
This follows logically from the rule that the plaintiff can open the door to evidence regarding industry standards by the manner he conducts the trial.
II. Safety Features on Other Products
The plaintiff next contends that he expects the defendants to present evidence that other manufacturers' circular saws have safety features that are optional. The plaintiff suggests that such evidence would raise the inference that, if other circular saw manufacturers have optional safety features, then it should be permissible for the defendant to manufacture a circular saw without the safety feature. Although the plaintiff does not identify the safety feature in question, the court presumes (as do the defendants in their response) that the safety feature is a blade brake.
It appears from the defendants' response that they do not intend to introduce evidence concerning the features of other manufacturers' circular saws. They do argue that, if the plaintiff refers to the features of other manufacturers' circular saws, they should be allowed to introduce the operator manuals for the other saws as well as to discuss the braking system which pertains to each saw. In anticipation of the plaintiff doing so, the defendants have listed a DeWalt circular saw manual as a proposed exhibit. The plaintiff has not included a DeWalt saw as a proposed exhibit on his Exhibit List and so, pursuant to the court's June 4, 2004 scheduling order, the plaintiff may not introduce a DeWalt saw during his case-in-chief. This should eliminate the need for the defendants to introduce the DeWalt manual.
In their pretrial memorandum, the defendants state that the expect the plaintiff to introduce into evidence a DeWalt saw which has a blade brake.
In short, it appears that neither party intends to introduce in their case-in-chief any evidence concerning the features of other manufacturers' circular saws. Thus, the resolution of this part of the plaintiff's motion is rather simple: neither party may introduce evidence concerning the features of other manufacturers' circular saws.
III. Evidence Concerning Whether the Plaintiff's Injury is Unique
The plaintiff argues that the defendants should be precluded from introducing evidence tending to prove that the manufacturer has never received a report of someone being injured in the manner the plaintiff claims that he was injured. The defendants indicate in their response that they intend to present evidence concerning a lack of similar accidents as evidence that the saw in question is safe and to show that the alleged defect did not cause the accident.
In Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co., 696 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 1997), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined that, in a strict product liability case, the manufacturer may present evidence that there were no prior claims involving its product that were similar to the one alleged by the plaintiff. Id. at 1173. In order for this evidence to be admissible, it is required that the manufacturer lay a proper foundation by establishing that others had used the same or a substantially similar product in the same or a substantially similar manner and had not been injured by the product. Id. at 1173-74. The Supreme Court noted that if the evidence the manufacturer intends to offer "is no more than testimony that no lawsuits have been filed, no claims have been made or that the defendant has never heard of any accidents, the trial judge should generally refuse such evidence as it has little probative value and has a high danger of prejudice." Id. at 1173 n. 8. In Spino, the Supreme Court found to be an adequate foundation the claims log the manufacturer maintained. Id. at 1174. The trial court had reviewed the claims log in camera prior to admitting evidence concerning the lack of prior claims,see id. at 1171, 1174, and the trial court had found the claims log to be "comprehensive and reflective of all reports, claims or problems involving the [product at issue]." Id. at 1174.
In this case, the defendants have not laid any foundation for the admission of evidence concerning the absence of prior, similar accidents involving their product. Nor have the defendants identified precisely what evidence they intend to present. Without knowing this, the court is unable to determine whether the defendants can be allowed to present evidence regarding the absence of prior, similar accidents. The plaintiff's motion will be granted to the extent that the defendants will not be permitted to present evidence regarding the absence of prior accidents involving their product unless the defendants first provide the court with foundation evidence to support admissibility and also provide a proffer of the evidence they intend to present and which witness or witnesses will provide the evidence. Since the parties anticipate that the trial of this matter may take as little as one day, the defendants must provide all of this information to the court by October 25, 2004. If the defendants fail to meet this deadline, they will be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the absence of prior, similar accidents.
An implementing order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of October, 2004, upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion in limine (Document No. 39), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained in the attached Memorandum. The Clerk of Court shall mark the plaintiff's motion as closed for statistical purposes.