Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01862/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01862-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pennwalt Corporation
Appellee
Kelly Lynn Randell
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

KELLY LYNN RANDELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

i'at)th r.ircuit 

JAN 2 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 86-1862 

(D.C. No. 83-C-794-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

PENNWALT CORPORATION, d/b/a 

STOKES DIVISION, PENNWALT 

CORPORATION, and F.J. STOKES. MACHINE COMPANY, a 

Pennsylvania Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying the 

plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a defendant's verdict 

on plaintiff's personal injury claim. Plaintiff asserts that the 

trial court erred in striking certain evidence and in instructing 

the jury. Findi ng no error, we affirm. 

Plaintiff argues the trial court should not have struck 

exhibit 30. Plaintiff contends the exhibit contains a statement 

constituting a party admission making it admissible under Fed. R. 

Evid . 80l(d)(2) . We disagree. The origin of the hearsay 

statement contained in exhibit 30 is equivoca l. At best, the 

statement is a recordation of something told by t he personnel 

Appellate Case: 86-1862 Document: 01019711526 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 1 
manager of plaintiff's employer to an insurance adjuster retained 

by defend~nt•s insurer. Plaintiff's argument that the insurance 

adjuster is an agent of the defendant is specious. The trial 

court correctly rejected exhibit 30. 

Plaintiff next contends the trial court should have 

instructed the jury that custom and usage among manufacturers is 

not determinative of liability. The court gave a state of the art 

instruction that specifically told the jury "the state of the art 

of press design ••• is not conclusive as to the determination of 

(whether the press was defectively designed]." That instruction 

satisfies the plaintiff's contention. We have considered the 

remaining arguments raised by plaintiff and find them without 

merit. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-1862 Document: 01019711526 Date Filed: 01/26/1989 Page: 2