Flaminio v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd.

733 F.2d 463 (7th. Cir. 1984)

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

D bought a 'Gold Wing' motorcycle manufactured by Honda (D) and distributed in the United States by its wholly owned subsidiary, American Honda Motor Company (American (D)). Three days later, shortly after a dinner at which he had one or two drinks, P was driving the motorcycle P passed a car at a speed of somewhere between 50 and 70 m.p.h. (the speed limit was 50), and as he did so felt a vibration in the front end of the motorcycle. He tried to look at the front wheel to see what was wrong. This was an awkward maneuver because his feet were up on the motorcycle's 'highway pegs' so he was leaning backward. By his own admission, the effort in this position to see the front wheel probably brought him up off the seat. The motorcycle began to wobble uncontrollably and then it shot off the road and crashed leaving P a paraplegic. Ps sued Ds alleging that either the wobble was due to the defective design of the motorcycle, or Ds should have warned users about the motorcycle's propensity to wobble. After the accident, D made the struts two millimeters thicker. The Rule makes evidence of subsequent remedial measures 'not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event,' but adds: 'This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.' P argued that the blueprints were admissible under the exceptions for 'proving . . . feasibility of precautionary measures if controverted,' and for impeaching the defendants' evidence. Ds did not deny the feasibility of precautionary measures against wobble. Their argument was that there is a tradeoff between wobble and 'weave,' and that in designing the model on which P was injured D had decided that weave was the greater danger because it occurs at high speeds and because the Gold Wing model -- what motorcycle buffs call a 'hog' -- was designed for high speeds. The feasibility, as distinct from the net advantages, of reducing the danger of wobble was not an issue. The court excluded the evidence. D got the verdict and American (D)) was found 30 percent responsible for the accident. P was found 70 percent responsible. Judgment was entered for Ds, and Ps appealed.