2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-13-2009 

# J ohn C leve nge r v

. C NH Ame r LL C P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2872

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J o hn C leve n g e r v

. C NH Ame r LL C " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 825. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/825H onor abl e N or a B arr yFi s cher , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe W es t ern D i s t r i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 2872 

### JOHN E. CL EV EN GE R; CA RO L L . CLE VENG ER , husbandand w ife, Ap p e l l ant s v. CN H A M ERI CA , LLC

A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t of Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 1- 06- cv- 1006) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay14, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and FI SC H E R , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t13, 2009)

OP I NI ON FI SC H E R , D i s t r i ctJ udge P lain tiff s J o h n a n d C a ro l C lev e n g e r a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e irT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l. F o r t h e f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s of r ecor d, w e s et fo rth o n lytho se f

ac ts pe rt inen t t o the re so luti o n o f th e ins tant ap p ea l. A fter M r. 1 C l evenge rs uffe r ed an i nj ur yexi t i ng a C as e 85X T s ki d s t eerl oaderm anufa ctur ed by defe ndantC N H A m er i ca, L L C , t he C l evenge r s br oughtthi s l aw s ui tundera s t r i ct pr oduct s l i abi l i t yt heory , al l egi ng t hatthe s afe t yi nt er l ock s y s t em on t he s ki d s t eerl oader w as defe ct i vel ydes i gned. A j ur yt r i al w as conduct ed overfourday s and a ve r di ctw as re n d e re d in f

a v o r o f C N H , w ith th e ju ryin d ica tin g o n a sp e c ial v e rd ict s lip th a t th e sk id s t eerl oaderw as notdefe ct i ve as des i gned. A s a r es ul t , the j urydi d notr eac h a concl us i on as t o ot heri s s ues i n t he ca s e. T he C l evenge r s ’ s ubs equentm ot i on fora new t r i al w as deni ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand thi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. T h e C lev e n g e rs c o n ten d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d se v e ra l er ro rs in its instruction s to the juryan d ev iden ti aryruli n g s. “T h e stan d ard o f re v iew o n a m o ti o n fo r a new t r i al i s ‘ abus e of di s cr et i on unl es s the [di s t r i ct ] cour t ’ s deni al of the mot i on i s bas ed on appl i cat i on of l egal pr ece pt , i n w hi ch ca s e ourr evi ew i s pl enary . ” C ur l ey v . K l em , 499 F. 3d 199, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng H oneywel l , I nc. v. A m . Standar ds Tes t i ng B ur eau,3

I nc. , 8 5 1 F .2 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )) . III . W ith re sp e c t to ju ryin stru c tio n s, th e C lev e n g e rs c o n ten d th a t a n e w trial is w arr ant ed bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s char ge ( 1) m i s defi ned the conc eptof “i nt ended u se ” u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia s trict p ro d u c t li a b ili tylaw , (2 ) c o n f late d “ in ten d e d u se ” w ith caus at i on, ( 3) i m pr oper l ym ent i oned the conc eptof as s um pt i on of r i s k, and ( 4) im p ro p e rlyf

o c u se d th e ju ryo n M r. C lev e n g e r’s c o n d u c t in ste a d o f C N H ’s a lleg e d ly defe ct i ve p roduct. W e revi ew j uryi nst ruct i on s for abuse of dis cret i on , bu texerci se pl enaryr evi ew “w hen the ques t i on i s w hethera di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons m i s s t at ed the l aw . ” Fel i

x de Ase nci o v. Tys on Foods , I nc. , 500 F. 3d 361, 366 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D obs on , 4 1 9 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )) , cer t . deni ed , 128 S. C t . 2902 (2 0 0 8 ). “T h e c h a rg e , tak e n a s a w h o le a n d v iew e d in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , m u st f

a irly and ade quat el ys ubm i tt he i s s ues i n the ca s e t o t he j ury . ” Tigg C or p. v. D ow C or ni ng C or p. , 962 F. 2d 1119, 1123 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng L i n k v . Me r c e d e s - B e n zo

f N. A m. , 788 F .2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 )) (i n te rn a l b ra c k e ts o m itte d ). T he part i es agr ee thatPenns y l vani a s t r i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i t yl aw governs the su b sta n tiv e a sp e c ts o f

th is d isp u te. T o b rin g a su c c e ss f u l d e sig n d e f

e c t cla im p u rsu a n t to th a t la w , a p la in tif

f m u s t p ro v e , in tera lia , “thatthe pr oductw as defe ct i ve . . . [and] the defe ctw as a pr oxi m at e ca us e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur i es . ” D avis v. B er w i nd C or p. , 690 A . 2d 186, 190 ( Pa. 1997) . A pr oducti s defe ct i vel ydes i gned w hen i t“l ack[ s ] anyel ement4

n e c e ss a ryto m a k e it sa f e f o r its in ten d e d u se o r p o ss e ss [ e s] a n yf e a tu re th a t re n d e rs it uns afe fort he i nt ended us e. ” A z z ar el l o v. B l ack Bros . C o. , 391 A . 2d 1020, 1027 ( Pa. 1978) . C ons equent l y , “ther e i s no s t r i ctl i abi l i t yi n Penns y l vani a r el at i ve t o non- i nt ended us es even w her e for es eea bl e bya manufactur er . ” P a. D ep’ tof G en. Ser vs . v. U

ni t ed Stat es Mi ner alP r ods . C o. , 8 9 8 A .2 d 5 9 0 , 6 0 0 (P a . 2 0 0 6 ). T he C l evenge r s as s er tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j urym i s s t at ed the appl i cabl e l aw beca us e the C our ty oked the conc eptof “i nt ended us e” t o t he w arni ngs and in s tru c tio n s p ro v id e d b yC N H w ith th e C a s e 8 5 X T s k id s te e r l o a d e r. W e d is a g re e . Penns y l vani a “l aw pr es um es t hatw arni ngs w i l l be obey ed. ” D a v is , 690 A . 2d at190. T he C l evenge r s w er e ther efor e r equi r ed t o demonstr at e thatthe s ki d s t eerl oader“w oul d not have be en s afe even i f the w arni ngs w er e fol l ow ed. ” G igus v. G i l es & Ransom e, I nc. , 868 A . 2d 459, 462 ( Pa. Super . 2005) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yi nform ed the j uryof th is re q u ir e m e n t. S ince the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yinstructed the ju ryo n “inten d ed u se,” the jury w as fai r l yand ade quat el yi nform ed of the conc eptof “de fec t i ve des i gn. ” G i ven our gener al pr es um pt i on “thatj ur i es fol l ow i ns t ruct i ons gi ven bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . H

a k im , 344 F. 3d 324, 326 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and the j ury ’ s i ndi cat i on on i t s s peci al ver di ctform t hatt he C as e 85X T s ki d s t eerl oaderw as notdefe ct i ve as des i gned, a new t r i al w oul d notbe nec es s aryeven i f the r emai ni ng as pect s of the cha r ge mi s s t at ed the a p p lic a b le la w . See Pi vi r ot t o v. I nnovat i ve Sys . , I

nc. , 191 F. 3d 344, 350 ( 3d C i r . 1999)5

(“ [ w ]e w ill n o t re v e rse a v e rd ict o n th e g ro u n d th a t a ju ryin stru c tio n w a s e rro n e o u s if ‘it i s hi ghl ypr obabl e thatt he err ordi d notcontr i but e t o t he j udgm ent ’ ” ( quot i ng Mur r ay v. U ni t ed of O m aha Li

f e I ns . C o. , 1 4 5 F . 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ) ) . Ne v e r t h e l e s s , we have r evi ew ed the cha r ge i n i t s ent i r etyand i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al and c o n c lu d e th a t it w a s n e ith e r m is le a d in g n o r i n a d e q u a te . See H ur l ey v . A t l . C i t

y Pol i ce D ep ’t , 174 F. 3d 95, 114- 15 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( r ever s al i s w arr ant ed w her e j uryi ns t ruct i ons “ar e mi s l eadi ng ori nadequa t e” ( quot i ng W oods on v. Scot tP aperC o. , 109 F. 3d 913, 929 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )) ). I V. T h e C leve n g ers a lso a ssert th at th e D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted n u m ero u s ev iden ti ary e rr o rs . W e re v ie w d e te rm in a tio n s o n th e a d m is s ib ility o f e v id e n c e f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Moyerv. U

ni t ed D om i ni on I

ndus . , I nc. , 4 7 3 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Fi r s t , t he C l evenge r s ar gue thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence of M r. C lev e n g e r’s c o n d u c t at th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t. P e n n sy lv a n ia s trict p ro d u c ts liab ili ty l aw , how ever , perm i t s a def endantt o i ntr oduce e vi dence of m i s us e i n or dert o defe at c a u s a tio n . I

d. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a llo w in g th e ju ryto re c e iv e th is e v id e n c e . T he C l evenge r s nextal l ege thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n pr ohi bi t i ng them from q u e stio n in g C N H ’s c o rp o ra te r e p re se n tativ e re g a rd in g h is k n o w led g e o f th e m a n n e r in w h ich c o n su m e rs u se th e C a se 8 5 X T sk id ste e r lo a d e r. T h is te stim o n yw a s s o u g h t in6

or dert o demonstr at e thatC N H for es aw thati t s cus t om er s us ed i t s s ki d s t eerl oaderi n the m anneri n w hi ch M r . C l evenge rw as us i ng i tw hen he s uffe r ed hi s i nj ury . T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtproperl ypreven t ed the C l even gers fr om pu rs uing t he tes t i m on ybecau se “for es eea bi l i t ycons i der at i ons have no pl ace i n [Penns y l vani a s t r i ctl i abi l i t ydes i gn defe ct l aw ] . ” U ni t ed Stat es Mi ner alP r ods ., 8 9 8 A .2 d a t 6 0 1 . T he C l evenge r s fur t hercont end thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tperm i t t ed C N H t o a d m i ta v i d e o i n w h i c h i t s e x p e r to p e r a t e d a C a s e 8 5 X T s k i d s t e e rl o a d e r . We fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng thatthe pr obat i ve v a lu e o f th is e v id e n c e w a s n o t su b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d b yth e sp e c ter o f e ith e r u n f

a ir p re ju d ic e to th e C le v e n g e rs o r m is le a d in g th e ju ry. S e e Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Ke mp , 500 F. 3d 257, 295 ( “a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s . . . di s cr et i on i s cons t rued es peci al l ybr oadl yi n t he cont extof [Fed. R . E vi d. ] 403” ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . M

a th is , 2 6 4 F . 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 -27 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 3 2 9 (2 0 0 8 )) . T he C l evenge r s al s o as s ai l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on pr ohi bi t i ng them from in tro d u c in g C N H ’s r e p o rts o f o th e r a lleg e d a c c id e n ts in v o lv in g its sk id ste e r lo a d e rs w ith ci r cumst ance s s i m i l art o t he ac ci dentthatform s the bas i s of thi s act i on. T heyar gue that t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ts h o u l d h a v e a d m i t t e d th e s e r e p o r t s u n d e rF e d . R . E v i d . 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . We have e xami ned the r epor t s and conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on in re f u s in g to a d m it th is h e a rs a ye v id e n c e . See Fed. R . E vi d. 803( 6) ( hear s aycont ai ned w i t hi n bus i nes s r ecor ds i s s ubj ectt o excl us i on w hen “the s our ce of i nform at i on orthe7

m e th o d o r c irc u m sta n c e s o f p re p a ra tio n in d ica te la c k o f tru stw o rth in e ss ” ); s ee al s o John McShai n, I

nc. v. C es s na A i r cr af

tC o. , 563 F. 2d 632, 635- 36 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( no abus e of d is c re tio n in e x c lu d in g a c c id e n t r e p o rt s p ro f f e re d to d e m o n s tr a te d e s ig n d e f e c t) . F i n a l l y , t h e Cl e v e n g e r s a l l e g e th a tth e Di s t r i c tCo u r te r r e d wh e n i tp e r mi t t e d CN H t o e l i c i tt e s t i mo n yr e g a r d i n g i n d u s t rys t a n d a r d s a n d p r a c t i c e s . Un d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, s u c h e v id e n c e is in a d m is s ib le in a s tr ic t lia b ility d e s ig n d e f e c t a c tio n . Lew is v. C of f i ng H ois tD i v. , D uf

f

- N or t on C o. , 528 A . 2d 590, 594 ( Pa. 1989) . H er e, how ever , the C l evenge r s i nt r oduced t es t i m onyr egar di ng i ndus t r ys t andar ds and pr act i ces i n t hei rcas ein -c h ie f. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in a f f o rd in g C N H a re b u tta l. See B yrdv. M a rico p a C o u n ty Sh erif

f’s D ep ’t , 565 F. 3d 1205, 1213 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “the intr o d u cti o n o f in ad m issi b le ev iden ce b yo n e p artyall o w s an o p p o n en t, in the co u rt ’s di s cr et i on, t o i nt r oduce e vi dence on t he s ame i s s ue t o r ebutanyfal s e i m pr es s i on that m i ghthave r es ul t ed fr om t he ea r l i eradmi s s i on” ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . W

h itw o rth , 856 F . 2 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 8 5 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ))) . V . I n s um , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n i t s char ge t o t he j uryor evi dent i aryrul i ngs . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the C our t ’ s or derdeny i ng the C le v e n g e rs ’ m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l.