Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ps purchased a type 3 household ladder in 1986 from a paint store. D manufactured the latter which was designed to accommodate ordinary household use restricted to a 200-pound weight bearing load. They used the later for a painting project and to wash windows or hang curtains. Louise (P) used the ladder and heard a cracking sound, the ladder shook, and the next thing she remembers she was on the floor. She was then taken to the emergency room and underwent hospitalization and surgery to repair a fractured tibia and fibula. Ps sued D for strict liability. Ps filed a Motion in Limine seeking preclusion of the admission of evidence provided by D that there had been no similar accidents or claims with respect to this particular product in his thirty years of employment with the company and neither he, nor anyone at the company, had ever been informed of a failure similar to the one alleged by Ps. Ps maintained that allowing such evidence impermissibly injected negligence principles into a § 402(A) strict liability products liability action, and therefore, it is per se inadmissible. D claimed the evidence was relevant to prove that the ladder had not failed as alleged and was not intended to prove that D had been free of negligence in continuing to manufacture and market the type 3 ladder without providing an anti-split device. After an in camera review, the trial judge found that D maintained a chronological log of reported claims covering D’s ladder products, including the type 3 ladder. The court was satisfied that the log was an authentic business record and was 'comprehensive in its recording of all reports and claims of problems which the Company had received from any source.' None of the log entries reported a leg split of a type 3 ladder. Ps' expert testified that the lack of the anti-split device rendered the ladder unsafe for its intended use. D’s expert witness testified that the type 3 household ladder was not defectively designed, and based upon his examination of the same ladder, the crack in the ladder leg had occurred at some time prior to the accident. The jury found there was no defect in the ladder. The Superior Court affirmed, finding that the 'no prior claims' evidence was relevant as to the issue of causation and the trial judge properly admitted such testimony. Ps appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co