Diehl v. Blaw-Knox

360 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was severely injured while working as a laborer on a road crew for IA Construction, Inc. (IA). The road crew was using a machine called a 'road widener' to extend the shoulder of a road. It was manufactured by D in 1970. The road widener is usually followed by laborers who must perform a number of tasks, including removing excess material that is inadvertently left on the paved portion of the roadway; removing stones that become lodged in the material; leveling off the material that has been spread, and straightening the outer edge of the deposited material. The laborers are then followed by a roller to press the material. P was working behind the road widener. It had stopped and then began to move in reverse. P was not aware that the machine was reversing toward him. P's lower leg was crushed. P sued D claiming a defective in design. P sought to introduce testimony by an IA mechanic that, shortly after the accident, the mechanic modified the road widener by (1) installing a rear bumper/guard that enclosed the rear tires; (2) relocating the backup alarm to the rear of the machine; and (3) placing warning signs on the rear of the machine. D filed a motion in limine to exclude that evidence. The District Court ruled that the IA redesign was a subsequent remedial measure inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 407. P again argued at trial that Rule 407 does not apply to subsequent remedial measures taken by a non-party. The court refused and also held that under Rule 403, the evidence would confuse the jury. D got the verdict and P appealed.