Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligencetrialexpert witness
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialtestimonyexpert witnessappellantattachment

Related Cases

Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213
View Case »
U.S. v. Anderskow, 88 F.3d 245, 45 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 128
View Case »
Tommy’s Elbow Room, Inc. v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038
View Case »
Cain v. United States, 347 U.S. 1013, 74 S.Ct. 868 (Mem), 98 L.Ed. 1136
View Case »
Lindstrom v. United States, 350 U.S. 841, 76 S.Ct. 81 (Mem), 100 L.Ed. 750
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Blythe v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 586 So.2d 861, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,956

Facts

Charles Blythe was injured while operating a Craftsman Weed Wacker gas-powered, curved-shaft line trimmer that had been modified with a 10-inch metal blade. The trimmer carried a warning against using metal blades, stating it lacked necessary protective equipment. Blythe's injury occurred when the blade kicked back, resulting in the amputation of his leg. He sued Sears and Poulan, alleging the trimmer's design was defective because a metal blade could easily fit and lacked adequate warnings.

The appellant, Charles Blythe, was injured while operating a Craftsman Weed Wacker gas-powered, curved-shaft line trimmer. The line trimmer was owned by the parents of Blythe's girlfriend, Donna Bassett. It had been modified by the attachment of a 10–inch metal blade.

Issue

Whether evidence of a subsequent design change should have been admitted for the purpose of impeachment of an expert witness who had testified that the product was safe as marketed.

The single issue on appeal is whether evidence of a subsequent design change should have been admitted for the purpose of impeachment of an expert witness who had testified that the product was safe as marketed.

Rule

The general rule excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures states that such evidence is not admissible to show the defendant's antecedent negligence. However, it may be admissible for purposes other than proving negligence, such as impeachment.

The general rule excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures is that 'evidence of repairs or alterations made, or precautions taken, by the defendant after the injury to the plaintiff in an accident is not admissible as tending to show the defendant's antecedent negligence [or culpable conduct].'

Analysis

The court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the new metal blade as evidence of a subsequent remedial measure. The expert witness testified that the trimmer and blade system was safe and that the warnings were adequate. The court determined that allowing the new blade into evidence would improperly suggest that the defendants had previously acted negligently.

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding this evidence of a subsequent remedial measure.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the exclusion of the new metal blade was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Sears and Poulan prevailed in the case because the court upheld the adequacy of the warnings and the safety of the product as designed.

Sears and Poulan presented expert testimony from Ronald Loyd, who had designed the line trimmer and the blade, as well as other products, while employed with Poulan from 1973 to 1982.

You must be