The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.