Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

"All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution

of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the

Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not

admissible." Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402, 28 U.S.C.A. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL C. BAUERLEIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

MANAGEMENT CORP.; et al.,

Defendants, _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1904-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of

Dissimilar Accidents. (Doc. 146). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for determination. After

careful consideration, the Court issues the following ruling.

Plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence of three mini-blind related accidents which involve

the strangulation of three children. In particular, Plaintiffs would like to introduce testimony

of witnesses to three other accidents involving children who have been strangled by mini-blinds.

Defendants argue that the accidents are dissimilar to the case presently before the Court

and therefore the evidence Plaintiffs seek to introduce of the accidents is irrelevant and should

be excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence.1

 Moreover, even assuming the evidence is

relevant, the Defendants contend that the evidence is both misleading for the jury and

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 206 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,

or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence." Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403, 28 U.S.C.A. 

3

 The mini-blinds in the present case had pull cords in excess of 7-1/4 inches and were

not manufactured or distributed with safety devices.

- 2 -

prejudicial such that the prejudicial effect of the testimony would substantially outweigh any

possible probative value of the evidence thereby necessitating its exclusion under FRE 403,

Federal Rules of Evidence2

. “A ‘showing of substantial similarity is required when a plaintiff

attempts to introduce evidence of other accidents as direct proof of negligence, a design defect,

or notice of the defect.’” White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting

Cooper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiffs have disclosed witnesses to three other accidents, Nicole Walla, Jennifer

Danks, David Matthews, and Marisa Kluth each of whom are parents of children who were

strangled by mini-blinds that had pull cords in excess of 7-1/4 inches and did not have safety

devices.3

 Plaintiffs have attached to their disclosure the Consumer Product Safety

Commission’s in-depth investigation (“IDI”) for each of the three accidents. In two of the

accidents which Plaintiffs intend to offer evidence, the mini-blinds at the time of injury had two

separate pull cords, each ending in a separate tassel. The cords in question formed a loop and

became tangled, thereafter resulting in the strangulation. Unlike the case before the Court, the

loops in the unrelated cases were not created because someone had deliberately joined the cords

in a single tassel to form a loop, instead they tangled together forming a loop. To admit

evidence that children can also accidentally strangle if pull cords unintentionally become

tangled may wrongly invite the jury to hold L&W liable on that basis regardless of the fact that

this did not occur in the matter at hand. Moreover, the Court finds that the jury could easily be

confused or misled into imposing liability on the mere basis of what could have happened rather

than what did happen.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 206 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable

than it would be without the evidence." Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 401, 28 U.S.C.A. 

- 3 -

Evidence of the third accident of which Plaintiffs intend to offer evidence is the

Kluth accident. It also had two separate mini-blind pull cords each ending in a separate tassel.

The pull cord was knotted several times below the two separate tassels, however unlike the

present case in which Mr. Bauerlein denies joining the pull cords to form a loop, Ms. Kluth told

the CPSC investigator that she in fact “knotted the pull cord so that the blind would not extend

any further.” The Kluth mini-blind was a pleated fabric mini-blind (Bali Neat Pleat) unlike the

one in this case, manufactured by a different manufacturer, and distributed by a different

distributor. Moreover, unlike the undisputed facts of this case, there was no warning label on

the bottom rail of the Kluth mini-blind. Whether or not the evidence related to this accident is

relevant is of significant importance. The blinds were not manufactured or distributed by the

Defendants in the case before the Court, the proximate causation issues are clearly

distinguishable, and overall, the Court does not find that the evidence has any tendency to make

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable

or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 4

Defendants have articulated numerous distinguishing factors between the case presently

before the Court and the accidents from which Plaintiff's seek to draw evidence. Therefore, the

Court finds that the accidents are not substantially similar enough to the facts and circumstances

of this case. Thus, the evidence will be excluded as inadmissible under Rule 403 as unfairly

prejudicial, confusing, and misleading. 

Accordingly, 

...

...

...

...

...

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 206 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude

Evidence of Dissimilar Accidents. (Doc. 146).

DATED this 24th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 206 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 4