## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e29,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT TE RRY M I NTE R,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 7011 P R IM E E Q U IP M E N T C O M P A N Y , a T exas corpor at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N O . 0 2 - C V - 1 3 2 - W) J ohn H . T ucker( C ol i n H . T uckerand B r adl eyS. Shel t s w i th hi m on the br i efs ) of R hodes , H i er onym us , J ones , T ucker& G abl e, T ul s a, O kl ahoma forPl ai nt i ffA p p e llan t. J ames W . C onnor , J r . ( R ache l C . M athi s and Thom as D . H i r d w i th hi m on the br i ef) of R i char ds & C onnor , T ul s a, O kl ahoma forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efo re LU CE RO , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2-

T err yM i nt er , t he pl ai nt i ff- appel l ant , i s a pr ofes s i onal pai nt erw ho w as s ever el yi nj ur ed af

t erfal l i ng fr om an el evat ed w or k pl at form . H e fi l ed a pe r s onal inju ry la w s u it a g a in s t th e m a n u fa c tu re r a n d d is tr ib u to r o f th e w o rk p la tfo rm . A lth o u g h h is c o m p la in t c e n te re d o n d e s ig n a n d m a n u fa c tu ri n g d e fe c t c la im s , a series o f p roc ed u ral m an eu v ers b efo re tri al l ef t him w ith o n lya fail u re to w arn c laim a g a in st th e d istrib u to r. T h e ju ryfo u n d fo r th e d e fe n d a n t o n th e fa ilu re to w arn claim . M r. M inter ap p ea ls th at j u d g m en t, as w ell as th e d istri ct co u rt ’s rul i ng t hatl efthi m w i t h onl yone cl ai m . W e mustdeci de w hetherthe di s tr i ct c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yd ism iss in g th e p lain tiff ’s p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim agai ns tt he di s t r i but orforunt i m el i nes s and l ack of not i ce a nd bynotal l ow i ng an amendm entt o t he compl ai nt ; w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tw r ongful l yexcl uded fr om t r i al t he evi dence of the di s t r i but or ’ s s ubs equentr emedi al m eas ur es ; and w hether t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yal l ow ed evi dence of compar at i ve negl i gence i nt o a s tr ic t lia b ility fa ilu re to w a rn c a s e . W e a ffirm in p a rt, rev e rse in p a rt, an d re m a n d fo r n e w p ro c e e d in g s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o p in io n . I . BA CKGROUND T err yM i nt erw as hi r ed t o w or k as a pai nt erata cons truct i on s i t e i n T ul s a, O kl ahoma. O n t he morni ng of J ul y14, 1996, he w as us i ng a “s ci s s orl i ft ”— a typ e o f in d u str ial li ft th at raises an d low ers a p lat fo rm u sed fo r w o rk p o sitio n in g — to e n a b le h im to p a in t th e u n d e rsid e o f a ro o f a t th e site . W h ileA ccor di ng t o t he w orker s w ho came t o M r . M i nt er ’ s ai d aft erhi s fal l , t he 1 chai nl i nk cl os ur e on the l i ftw as notl at ched. M r . M i nt ert es t i fi ed thathe r emem ber ed cl os i ng i t , buthi s m emoryof the ac ci dentw as l i m i t ed due t o the s ever e hea d i nj ur yhe s uffe r ed fr om t he fa l l . A tt r i al , M r . M i nt erar gued thathe l at ched the cha i nl i nk entr y , butthe l at ch musthave j amm ed. Pr i m e Equi pm ent a rg u e d th a t M r. M in ter sim p lyfa iled to latc h th e c h a in lin k e n try . T h is d isp u te is ir re le v a n t fo r p u rp o s e s o f M r. M in te r’ s a p p e a l.

- 3- w or ki ng fr om at op t he s ci s s orl i ft , M r . M i nt eracc i dent al l ys t epped off the s i de of th e lift p latfo rm a n d fe ll tw e n tyfe e t to th e g ro u n d . T h e im p a c t f ra c tu re d h is skull , dam aged his spi nal cor d, and res ult ed in perm anen tparal y si s fr om the w ai st d o w n . M r . M i nt erm ai nt ai ns t hathi s acc i dentw as caus ed bya defecti n the s ci s s or l i ft . A tt he t i m e of the i nci dent , he w as us i ng a 1987 “Bar eca t ” model s ci s s orl i ft m anufa ctur ed byE conomyC om pany( “Econom y ”) , a for ei gn corpor at i on. T he B are ca t l iftw as d esig n ed to h av e a so li d m etal gu ard rail aro u n d the e n ti re per i m et erof the l i ftpl at form . O n the l i ftM r . M i nt erw as us i ng, one of the s i des h a d a c h a in lin k c lo su re in ste a d o f a so lid g u a rd ra il. M r. M in ter fa iled to p ro p e rly latc h th e c h a in lin k c lo su re o n th e m o rn in g o f th e a c c id e n t, w h ich a llo w e d h im to 1 s t ep uni nt ent i onal l yoff the pl at form and fa l l t o the gr ound. T he gr avamen of the law su itis th at th e so li d g u ard rail is a n ec essa ryp art of the B are ca t sci sso r l ift ’s fal l pr ot ect i on s y s t em becaus e i ti s w el ded i n pl ace and ca nnotbe mi s t akenl yl eft open byt he us er . M r . M i nt erar gues t hati f ther e had be en a s ol i d guar dr ai l att he- 4-

l i ft ’ s entr ance i ns t ead of t he cha i nl i nk cl os ur e, hi s acc i dentw oul d nothave h a p p e n e d . T he St at e C ourt P roce edi ngs O n A pri l 2, 19 97 , M r. M i nterfi l ed a p ers on al i njurysui ti n the T uls a C ount yD i s t r i ctC our ti n O kl ahoma. C as e N o. C J - 97- 01615. H i s compl ai nt asse rt ed p rod u cts l iabili tyan d n eg li g en ce claim s ag ains t th e m an u fa cture r, E conomy , forfai l ur e t o us e r eas onabl e ca r e i n des i gni ng, m anufa ctur i ng, i ns pect i ng, and t es t i ng t he s ci s s or s l i ft , and forfai l ur e t o w arn of defect s i n the l i f t . I ta l s o a s s e r t e d s t r i c tl i a b i l i tya n d n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms a g a i n s tAp p e l l e e P r i me E qu i pm ent C om pan y(“Pri m e E qu i pm ent”) , a T exas-based co rporat i on t hat l eases, s el l s , and s ervi ces E conomym achi nery . T he pl eadi ngs named fourother defe ndant s as w el l : G & G L eas i ng, t he ow nerof the l i ft ; M arr s E l ectr i c, I nc. , t he par t yl eas i ng t he l i ftatt he t i m e of the ac ci dent ; M anhatt an C ons truct i on, I nc. , t he gener al contr act oron t he s i t e; Sundi al Pai nt i ng, I nc. , M r . M i nt er ’ s empl oy er ; and S ilv e ra d o F o o d s , In c ., th e o w n e r o f th e b u ild in g w h e re M r. M in te r w a s w o rk in g . Att h e t i me h e fi l e d t h e l a ws u i t , t h e p l a i n t i ff b e l i e v e d t h a tP r i me E q u ipm en t’ s role in th e a cc iden t w as li m it ed to it s m ainten an ce an d rep air w o rk on t he l i ft . H e ther efor e bas ed hi s cl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm enton the co m p an y ’s all eg ed fa il u re to p rop erly“ins p ec t, rep air, an d m aintain th e sc issors lift” w h e n it w a s b ro u g h t in fo r a n a n n u a l sa fe tyin sp e c tio n , in a d d iti o n to its al l eged fai l ur e t o w arn. A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 158. D ur i ng di s covery , how ever , t he- 5-

pl ai nt i ff l earned thatPr i m e Equi pm enthad ow ned the s ci s s orl i ftbetw een 1987, th e y e a r th e lift w a s m a n u fa c tu re d , an d A u g u st 1 9 9 1 , w h e n P rim e E q u ip m e n t so ld t he l i ftt o G & G L eas i ng. Pr i m e Equi pm entw as ther efor e i n the cha i n of dis t ri bu t i on for pu rposes of t he m anu facturerprodu ctl i abil i tycl ai m against E c o n o m y . O n J ul y8, 1998, M r . M i nt eramended hi s compl ai ntt o i ncl ude a r et ai l er pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm ent . Pr i m e Equi pm entdi s cl ai m ed anyr es pons i bi l i t yforr emovi ng the s ol i d guar dr ai l , and one of i t s empl oy ees t es t i fi ed thatPr i m e Equi pm entboughtthe l i ftfr om E conomyw i th the cha i nl i nk e n t r ya l r e a d yi n s t a l l e d . Th e p l a i n t i ff r e s p o n d e d th a t , u n d e rOk l a h o ma l a w, P r i me E q u i p m e n tw a s “ l i a b l e u n d e rt h e th e o ry o f m a n u fa c tu r e r ’ s p r o d u c tl i a b i l i ty” beca us e “[ t ] he l i abi l i t yof the manufactur erand di s tr i but or/r et ai l eri s coext ens i ve, even though t he l at t erm aynotbe r es pons i bl e forthe exi s t ence orpr es ence of a defe ct . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 194. P rim e E q u ip m e n t d e fe n d e d itse lf a g a in st b o th th e re taile r p ro d u c t li a b ili ty cl ai m and the negl i gence cl ai m . I tr es ponded t o the pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m by chal l engi ng t he qual i fi cat i ons and t es t i m onyof the onl yexpertw i tnes s t o t es t i fy on beh al f of

M r. M i ntert hat the li ftw as defecti ve. P ri m e E qu i pm ent al so i nt r oduced i t s ow n expertw i t nes s es t o t es t i fythatthe l i ftw as nei therdefe ct i ve norunr eas onabl ydanger ous . T hos e defens e w i tnes s es opi ned thatthe l i ftw as safe w h en u sed p rop erly , an d that the A m erican N ati o n al S tand ard Institu te’s- 6-

( A N SI ) vol unt aryi ndus t r ys t andar ds di d notr equi r e s ol i d guar dr ai l s unt i l 1991, s ever al y ear s aft ert he s ubj ects ci s s orl i ftw as m anufa ctur ed. Pr i m e Equi pm ent al s o pr es ent ed evi dence t hatM r . M i nt ercaus ed hi s ow n i nj ur i es ; namel y , thathe fai l ed t o l at ch the cha i nl i nk cl os ur e orus e a s afe tyharnes s . Pr i m e Equi pm ent a lso filed a c ro ss c laim a g a in st E c o n o m yse e k in g in d e m n ityfo r a n yliab ili ty a ri s in g o u t o f

a p ro d u c t lia b ility ju d g m e n t. In r espon se t o the neg l i gen ce cl ai m s, P ri m e E qu i pm ent r el i ed o n it s defen se t o t he pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m , and al s o pr epar ed defens es bas ed on compar at i ve negl i gence and as s um pt i on of r i s k. I n thi s connec t i on, Pr i m e Equi pm entpl anned t o introduce evidence o f M r. M i nter ’s his t oryof m arij uan a use du ri ng w ork ho urs. M r . M i nt eradmi t t ed dur i ng hi s depos i t i on thathe “oc cas i onal l y ” cons um ed m ar ij uana w hi l e atw or k, and hi s m edi cal r eportfr om aft erthe ac ci dents how ed th a t h e h a d T H C m e tab o lit e s in h is u rin e , w h ich in d ica te r e c e n t ex p o su re to m ar ij uana. M r . M i nt ert es t i fi ed thathe w as s oberatthe t i m e of the ac ci dentand that the T H C m etab o li tes i n h is urine w ere fro m u sing m arij u an a tw o d ay s b efo re hi s fal l . T he defendant s i nt ended t o i ntr oduce the evi dence attr i al , how ever , and l eta j ur ydeci de w hetherM r . M i nt erw as i nt oxi cat ed on the morni ng of the a c c id e n t. T h e state c o u rtn ev er h ad an o p p o rtu n ityto ad d ress the m erit s o f M r. M i nt er ’ s pr oductl i abi l i t yand negl i gence cl ai m s . A ft erfoury ear s of l i t i gat i on, t he pl ai nt i ff s et t l ed w i t h G & G L eas i ng, M anhatt an C ons truct i on, Sundi al Pai nt i ng- 7-

an d S il v era d o F o o d s. O n ce tho se p arti es w ere d rop p ed fro m the lit igation , there wa s c o mp l e t e d i v e r s i t yo f c i t i z e n s h i p b e twe e n th e p l a i n t i ff a n d th e d e fe n d a n t s . On M ar ch 20, 2001, t he pl ai nt i ff vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed hi s s t at e courtcompl ai nt a g a in st th e tw o re m a in in g d e fe n d a n ts, P rim e E q u ip m e n t an d E c o n o m y , in o rd e r to re file in fe d e ra l c o u rt . T he F ederalD i s t ri ct C ourt P roce edi ngs M r . M i nt err et ai ned new couns el and r efi l ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma on M ar ch 20, 2002, exac t l yone y ear aft ert he vol unt arydi s m i s s al of hi s s t at e courtact i on. T he fe der al compl ai ntw as s i gni fi cant l ys hor t ert han hi s s t at e courtcompl ai nthad bee n. I ns t ead of compar t m ent al i zi ng hi s var i ous cl ai m s i nt o cat egor i es of negl i gence , s tr i ct li ab il ity , an d p rod u ct l iabili ty , the fed era l com p lai n t si m p lystat ed that M r. M i nt er ’ s i nj ur i es w er e ca us ed by“defect s i n the des i gn and manufactur e of a s ci s s orl i ftdes i gned, m anufa ctur ed and s ol d byE conomy , ” and by“the fa i l ur e of Pr i m e Equi pm entC o. , t he ow ner , t o pr oper l yi ns pect , r epai rand mai nt ai n the li ft. ” C o m p lai n t 1. I t al so all eg ed that b o th d efen d an ts ha d fa il ed “to w arn M r. M i nt erof dange r s i n t he s ubj ects ci s s orl i ft . ” Id . In w h at tu rns o u t t o b e a n im p o rt an t fac t i n this ap p ea l, M r. M inter’s fede ral com plai nt di d n ot express l ysetforth a p roduct l i abil i tycl ai m against Pr i m e Equi pm entbas ed on the company ’ s al l eged r es pons i bi l i tyforal t er at i on of t he l i ft ’ s guar dr ai l s y s t em. T he compl ai ntdi d r efe rt o Pr i m e Equi pm entas havi ngTh e r e a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n s o me c o n f u s i o n a tfi r s ta s t o wh e th e rP r i me 2 E q u ip m e n t still o w n e d th e lift a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t, or w h e th e r it h a d so ld t he l i ftt o G & G L eas i ng i n 1991. I n ei therevent , Pr i m e Equi pm entw oul d s t i l l be s tr ic tly lia b le u n d e r a p ro d u c t lia b ility th e o ry. See A l l enberg v. B ent l ey Hedges Trav elSer v. , Inc. , 2 2 P .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 7

– 2 8 (O k la . 2 0 0 1 ).

- 8- been “the ow ner ” of t he l i ft , w hi ch putPr i m e Equi pm enti n the cha i n of 2 d istrib u tio n o f

h is p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim a g a in st E c o n o m y . T h is m ig h t ar g u a b ly h a v e b e e n su fficie n t u n d e r th e lib e ra l p lea d in g sta n d a rd s o f F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 8 t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f a r e t a i l e rp r o d u c tl i a b i l i tyc l a i m a g a i n s tP r i me E qui pm ent . B utt her e i s no expl i ci tm ent i on i n the compl ai ntof a pr oduct lia b ility c la im b a s e d o n a lte ra tio n s m a d e to th e lif t a f te r i ts m a n u fa c tu re . O n J une 10, 2002, t he part i es s ubm i t t ed a Pl anni ng M eet i ng R eportt o the dis t ri ctcou rt . T he R epo rtcon t ai ned a sum m aryof M r. M i nter ’s cl ai m s. T his , to o , m a d e n o m e n tio n o f e ith e r a re taile r o r a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim againstP ri m e E qu i pm ent. T he R epo rtread as fol l ow s: Summaryof

Claims : Ag a ins t de fend ant P rimeEquip ment C o. : F a ilureto ins pe c t, repair and maintain scissors lift. Failure to warn. Ag ainst defendant EconomyCo.: Def ective de sign and manufactureof scissors lift. Failureto warn. A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 3. Si m i l ar l y , i n hi s i nt err ogat oryans w er s , M r . M i nt er b a se d h is c laim a g a in st P rim e E q u ip m e n t o n its a lleg e d fa ilu re “ to p ro p e rly in sp e c t, rep a ir a n d m a in tain th e sc iss o r lift” ra th e r th a n o n a p ro d u c t li a b ili ty- 9-

th e o ry. Id . at 3 7

– 3 8 . T h e p lain tiff d id , h o w e v e r, d e sc rib e h is n e g lig e n t re p a ir and mai nt enanc e cl ai m as pr edi cat ed on the fa ctthatthe s ci s s orl i ft , “as pr ovi ded t o [h i m , ] w as i n a co nd i t i on ” t hat “w as contr aryt o est abli shed safetyst and ards” beca us e i thad “a det acha bl e cha i n l i nk fi t t ed i n pl ace of a s ol i d s t eel guar dr ai l . ” Id . O nce the ca s e w as i n fede r al court , al l thr ee pa r t i es agr eed t o us e the d i s c o v e r yma t e r i a l p r o d u c e d i n t h e s t a t e c o u r ta c t i o n . M r . M i n t e ra n d P r i me E qui pm ental s o i nt r oduced a ddi t i onal expertw i tnes s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the s afe t yof the l i ft . T he pl ai nt i ff’ s new expertcl ai m ed thatthe r epl ace m entof the s ol i d guar dr ai l w i t h a cha i nl i nk cl os ur e r ender ed the l i ftunr eas onabl ydanger ous and defect i ve. Pr i m e Equi pm entfi l ed r eport s fr om tw o new expertw i tnes s es w ho s t at ed thatt he l i ftw as “s afe fori t s i nt ended us e”; thatthe cha i nl i nk m odi fi cat i on

“ d i d n o tv i o l a t e a n yANSI o rOSHA S t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e t o th e l i f t ” a tth e t i me o f m a n u fa c tu re ; th a t th e lift w a s “ n o t d e fe c tiv e [ w h e n ] e q u ip p e d w ith . . . p ro p e rly us ed ac ces s poi ntchai ns ” i ns t ead of a s ol i d guar dr ai l ; and thatM r . M i nt ercaus ed th e a c c id e n t. A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . 4 2

– 4 3 , 5 0

– 5 1 . S h o rt lyb efo re the sch ed u led s tarto f tri al, the d efen d an ts cam e fo rw ard w ith a n e w re v e la tio n a b o u t th e h is to ry o f th e s c is s o r l if

t’ s g u a rd ra il s y s te m . T h r o u g h o u tt h e p r e c e d i n g fi v e ye a r s o f l i t i g a t i o n , P r i m e E q u i p m e n th a d a l w a ys m ai nt ai ned thatt he manufactur er , E conomy , w as r es pons i bl e fori ns t al l i ng the chai nl i nk entr yon t he l i ft . O n J une 12, 2003, how ever , thr ee w eeks befor e the- 10-

s chedul ed s t artof tr i al , Pr i m e Equi pm entand Econom yent er ed a J oi ntSt i pul at i on s t at i ng t hatE conomyw as notr es pons i bl e forthe mi s s i ng s ol i d guar dr ai l atthe l i ft ’ s entr ance . T he J oi ntSt i pul at i on s t at ed thatthe “Sci s s orL i ftw as m a n u fa c tu re d b yth e D e fe n d a n t, E c o n o m yC o m p a n y , w ith fo u r s o lid to p ra ils ,” and thatt he “s ci s s orl i ft ’ s condi t i on w as s ubs t ant i al l yand mat er i al l yal t er ed af t er the liftleft D efen d an t E co n o m y ’s po sses sion an d w as so ld . . . . ” A p p ell an t’ s A p p . 7 3 . M o reo v er, Prim e E q u ipm en t pro d u ce d a n ew ex p ert w itn ess re p o rt a lo n g w ith th e Jo in t S tip u latio n sta tin g th a t th e lift w a s m a n u fa c tu re d w ith a so lid g u a r d r a i l a r o u n d t h e e n t i r e p e r i me t e ro f th e l i f tp l a t fo r m. Atth e s a me t i me , P r i me Eq u i p me n tfi l e d a n e v i d e n t i a r ymo t i o n th a ts t a t e d th a t“ P l a i n t i ff i s p u r s u i n g P r i me [E q u ipm en t] o n a n eg li g en ce theo ryo n ly . ” A p p ell ee ’s S u p p . A p p . 1 0 . In co m b ination , thes e p o sit ion s h ad the p o tential to era se f rom the lit igation M r. M i n t e r ’ s p r o d u c tl i a b i l i t yc l a i m b a s e d o n th e a l l e g e d l yd e fe c t i v e g u a r d r a i l s y s t e m: the J o int Stipu lat ion ab so lved E co n o m yo f re sp o n sibil ityan d the e v iden ti ary m ot i on t ook t he pos i t i on t hatanyr es pons i bi l i tythatPr i m e Equi pm entm i ghthave foral t er i ng t he guar dr ai l s y s t em w as bey ond the s cope of pl ai nt i ff’ s negl i gence th e o ry. S ix d ay s af

ter th e d efen d an ts fil ed the J o int Stipu lat ion , the d istri ct co u rt u n ex p ec tedlytr an sfe rred the c ase to a d iffe ren t Jud g e. A s a p art of the tran sfe r, th e d istric t co u rt stru c k a ll o f th e p e n d in g m o tio n s a n d sc h e d u led d a tes p re v io u sly s eti n t he ca s e. A s t atus confe r ence w as hel d befor e the new j udge on J ul y1,T he part i es m ade a handw r i t t en adj us t m entt o the ca s e numberl i s t ed on 3 t he R epor t , i ndi cat i ng t hatt he ca s e had be en as s i gned t o a new j udge, but o th e rw is e le f

t th e o ri g in a l P la n n in g M e e tin g R e p o rt u n c h a n g e d .

- 11- 2003, atw hi ch t i m e the courtor der ed thatal l pr evi ous l ydeci ded mot i ons i n the c a se b e re -u rg e d b e fo re th e c o u rt. T h e c o u rt se t th e d e a d lin e fo r a m e n d m e n ts to t he pl eadi ngs forJ ul y16, 2003, and s chedul ed j ur ys el ect i on forD ece m ber1, 2003 and the s t artof tr i al forD ece m ber15, 2003. T he part i es r es ubm i t t ed thei rR eporton the Pl anni ng M eet i ng on J ul y7, 2 0 0 3 . T h e n ew R ep o rt w as a co p y o f the o n e fil ed a y ea r ea rl ier, an d there fo re 3 i ncl uded the “Summ aryof C l ai m s ” s ect i on thatfai l ed t o m ent i on an al t er at i on p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im a g a in s t P ri m e E q u ip m e n t. O n O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , the p arti es fil ed their ev iden ti arym o ti o n s. M r. M in ter filed m o tio n s in lim in e to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e o f h is m a riju a n a u se a n d h is fa i l u r e t o we a ra h a r d h a to rs a fe tyb e l to n th e d a yo f t h e a c c i d e n t . P r i me E qui pm entfi l ed a mot i on t o excl ude evi dence t hati thad r epl ace d the cha i nl i nk cl os ur e w i t h a s ol i d guar dr ai l aft ert he ac ci dent . I n thatm ot i on, Pr i m e Equi pm ent ag ain s tat ed that “P lai n ti ff is pu rsuin g P ri m e [ E q u ipm en t] o n a n eg li g en ce theo ry o n ly.” A p p e lle e ’s S u p p . A p p . 1 9 . T h e p a rties m e t in m id -N o v e m b e r to d isc u ss ju ryin stru c tio n s a n d d ra f t a pr opos ed pr etr i al or der . A tt hatm eet i ng, t he pl ai nt i ff not i fi ed Pr i m e Equi pm ent t hati ti nt ended t o i ncl ude a pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm entfor- 12-

a lterin g th e g u a rd ra il o n th e lift. P rim e E q u ip m e n t to ld th e p lain tiff th a t itw o u ld o bje c t to in c lu s io n o f

th a t c la im . T he part i es s ubm i t t ed thei rpr opos ed pr etr i al or dert o the di s tr i ctcourton N ovember24, 2003, t w o hour s befor e the pr etr i al confe r ence . T he pr opos ed or dercont ai ned the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m thatPr i m e Equi pm ent“mat er i al l yal t er ed the s ubj ects ci s s orl i ftbyr emoval of the [] s ol i d guar dr ai l s afe tyfea tur e r ender i ng t he pr oductdefe ct i ve and unr eas onabl ydanger ous atthe t i m e of s al e. ” Pr etr i al O r der 3. I tal s o cont ai ned Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s obj ect i on t o the cl ai m as a “be l at ed at t empt t o add a pr oduct s l i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns ti t , forthe veryfi r s tt i m e i n th[e] Pr etr i al O r der . ” Id. at6. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d nots i gn the pr etr i al or deratthat tim e . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e p re trial c o n fe re n c e , the d istric t co u rt issu e d its ruli n g o n the p en d ing ev iden ti arym o ti o n s. T h e c o u rtd en ied th e p lai n ti ff ’s m ot i on t o excl ude evi dence of hi s m ar ij uana us e on the gr ound thati tw as r el evantforeval uat i ng Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s compar at i ve negl i gence and as s um pt i on of r i s k defe ns es . I tal s o deni ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o excl ude evi dence t hathe w as notw ear i ng a har d hators afe tybel tatthe t i m e of the a c c id e n t, ho ld in g th a t su c h e v id e n c e w a s re lev a n t “to sh o w P lain tiff ’s c o n d u c t in t he w or kpl ace . ” The cour tgr ant ed Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s m ot i on t o excl ude e v id e n c e o f

its s u b s e q u e n t r e m e d ia l m e a s u re s to th e lif t.- 13-

O n t he morni ng of D ece m ber1, 2003, w i th the di s put e overthe al t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m s t i l l unr es ol ved, the di s tr i ctcour ts i gned and e nt er ed the p r e t r i a l o r d e r . I tc o n t a i n e d t h e p l a i n t i ff ’ s p r o d u c tl i a b i l i tyc l a i m a g a i n s tP r i me E qui pm entar i s i ng fr om t he “mat er i al al t er at i ons ” t o the l i ft , al ong w i th a mot i on byPr i m e Equi pm entt o s t r i ke the cl ai m . T he pr etr i al or deral s o s peci fi ed thatt he p a r t i e s wo u l d n o td i s p u t e t h a tt h e l i f twa s “ ma n u fa c tu r e d a n d s o l d b yEc o n o my C o. w i t h a s ol i d guar dr ai l ar ound ent i r e upperper i m et erof the s ci s s orl i ft p latfo rm ,” o r th a t P rim e E q u ip m e n t “s o ld th e sc iss o r lift to G & G L e a sin g ” w ith

“ th e so lid g u a rd ra il . . . re m o v e d f ro m th e e n trye n d a n d re p lac e d w ith a [ ] c h a in e n tr y .” A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . 8 6 . A ft er t he di s t r i ct cour t ent er ed the pr etr i al or der i nt o the r ecor d, t he p lain tiff a n n o u n c e d th a t h e w a s v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss in g h is n e g lig e n c e c laim agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm ent . H e then as ked the di s tr i ctcourtt o r econs i deri t s rul i ng o n th e “ v e ryp reju d icia l” m a riju a n a e v id e n c e , w h ich h e a rg u e d w a s irre lev a n t to t he pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m s . Pr i m e Equi pm entr es ponded thatbeca us e al l of the cl ai m s agai nsti tw ere based i n n egli gen ce, and becau se the p l ai nti ff h ad just di s m i s s ed al l of hi s negl i gence cl ai m s , Pr i m e Equi pm ents houl d be di s m i s s ed f ro m th e la w s u it. T h e c o u rt to o k a ll o f th e s e m a tte rs u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n . O n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 3 , thr e e d a y s a f ter v o ir d ire , the c o u rt h e a rd a rg u m e n ts r egar di ng t he s t atus of the pl ai nt i ff’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm ent and Econom y . A tt he s t artof the hea r i ng, t he pl ai nt i ff s t i pul at ed t o a di s m i s s al of- 14-

h i s d e s i g n a n d m a n u fa c tu r i n g p r o d u c tl i a b i l i ty c l a i m s a g a i n s tE c o n o m y, expl ai ni ng t hatt he evi dence pr oduced byboth defe ndant s now s how ed that E conomyhad manufactur ed and s ol d the l i ftw i th s ol i d guar dr ai l s on al l four sid e s. T h e o n lyc laim re m a in in g a g a in st E c o n o m yw a s a p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim fo r fa ilu re to p ro v id e a d e q u a te w a rn in g s o n th e lif t. O n D ec em b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , three d ay s b efo re the starto f tri al, the d istri ct co u rt rul ed on the out s t andi ng m ot i ons . I tgr ant ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o excl ude the ma r ij u a n a e v i d e n c e . I ta l s o a l l o we d M r . M i n t e rt o p r o c e e d t o tr i a l a g a i n s tP r i me E qui pm entw i t h hi s fai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m , w hi ch the courtrul ed w as bas ed on a pr oductl i abi l i t yt heory . H ow ever , the courtgr ant ed Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s m ot i on t o s t r i ke the al t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m , expl ai ni ng that“anycl ai m now as s er t ed byPl ai nt i ff forpr oduct s l i abi l i tys t emm i ng fr om the al t er at i on of the s ubj ectl i fti s deemed t o have ne verbeen a partof thi s act i on. ” O r der6. T he cour tdet erm i ned thatnone of the pl ai nt i ff’ s fi l i ngs befor e the pr etr i al or der pr ovi ded not i ce of

a pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm entforal t er i ng t he l i ft . I tdecl ar ed thatt he pr ej udi ce t o Pr i m e Equi pm entthatw oul d ar i s e fr om al l ow i ng t he cl ai m i s “obvi ous . ” Id . at5. T he courtnot ed that“[t ] he as s er t i on of t hi s cl ai m [fi r s t ] beca m e appa r entw hen the part i es att empt ed t o form ul at e a Pr etr i al O r der . C ont r aryt o t hi s C our t ’ s Schedul i ng O r der , [the] pr opos ed Pr etr i al O r der. . . w as nots ubm i t t ed t o t hi s C our tunt i l tw o hour s befor e the s chedul ed Pr etr i al C onfer ence . ” Id . at5. M or eover , Pr i m e Equi pm enthad al r eadyent er ed- 15-

into a Jo int Stipu lat ion w ith E co n o m ystat ing that the s cisso r l iftleft E co n o m y ’s contr ol w i t h al l fours ol i d guar dr ai l s i n pl ace , w hi ch meantthatPr i m e Equi pm ent c o u ld n o t file a c ro ss -c laim a g a in st E c o n o m ya s it d id in th e u n d e rly in g sta te c o u rt c a se . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ i]t is u n lik e lyth a t P rim e [ E q u ip m e n t] w o u ld h a v e tak e n th is s o m e w h a t cu rio u s m e a su re u n les s it b e liev e d th a t a pr oduct s l i abi l i t ycl ai m had notbeen s t at ed aga i ns ti t . ” Id . a t 6 . T he T ri al M r . M i nt ers et t l ed w i t h E conomyon the eve of tr i al . W hen the j ur yt r i al began on D ece m ber15, 2003, t he onl ycl ai m r emai ni ng i n the ac t i on w as t her efor e aga i ns tPr i m e Equi pm entforfai l ur e t o pr ovi de ade quat e w arni ng of d e fe c ts in th e lift. B efor e the s t artof openi ng ar gum ent s , t he pl ai nt i ff tr i ed aga i n t o add a pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm entbas ed on al t er at i ons m ade t o t he l i ft . H e fi l ed a Fede r al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( b) m ot i on foran amendm ent to co n fo rm to the ev iden ce , arg u ing that the a m en d m en t w as “ n ec essa ryto ca rry ou t[his ] cl ai m for r el i ef” an d w ou l d “n ot pr ej ud i ce P ri m e [E qu i pm ent] ’s defe nse of the pr oduct s cl ai m . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 262. T he courtdet erm i ned thati tw as unabl e t o rul e on hi s R ul e 15( b) m ot i on att hatt i m e. R ul e 15( b) author i zes t he a m e n d m e n t o f

p le a d in g s to c o n fo rm to e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t tr ia l, s ee F e d . R. C i v. P. 15( b) , and the pl ai nt i ff f i l ed hi s m ot i on befor e anyevi dence had bee n- 16-

pr es ent ed. T he courtt ol d t he part i es thati tw oul d r es erve i t s cons i der at i on of the m o tio n u n til la te r i n th e c a s e . W i t h n o r e a l a l t e r n a t i v e l e f t , th e p l a i n t i ff

p r o c e e d e d t o tr i a l w i th o n l y a fa i l u r e t o w a r n c l a i m a g a i n s tP r i m e E q u i p m e n t . I n p r e s e n t i n g h i s c a s e t o th e j u r y, t he pl ai nt i ff a r gued thatbeca us e the guar dr ai l s y s t em had been al t er ed, the o r i g i n a l wa r n i n g s p o s t e d b yt h e ma n u fa c tu r e rwe r e n o l o n g e ra d e q u a t e , a n d P r i me E qui pm enthad an obl i gat i on t o pos taddi t i onal w arni ngs . A s a r es ul t , m uch of t he ca s e s t i l l conce r ned the r emoval of the s ol i d guar dr ai l and w hetherthe chai nl i nk cl os ur e w as unr eas onabl ydanger ous , even though the pl ai nt i ff c oul d not a ss e rt a n a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim . P rim e E q u ip m e n t co n sis ten tly obj ect ed t o t he i nt r oduct i on of evi dence r egar di ng the al t er at i on on the gr ound th a t itw a s irre lev a n t to th e fa ilu re to w a rn c laim . T h e d istric t co u rt u su a lly overrul ed the obj ect i on, buti n eac h cas e i tnot ed thatthe evi dence w as r es tr i ct ed t o M r . M i nt er ’ s fai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m . A tthe cl os e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e, the c o u rt d e n ied th e p lain tiff ’s R u le 1 5 (b ) m o tio n fo r le a v e to a m e n d th e p lea d in g s to c o n fo rm to th e e v id e n c e . Pr i m e Equi pm entt hen pr ocee ded t o puton i t s defe ns e. I tcal l ed a number of r ebut t al w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed aboutthe s afe tyof the l i ftand ade quacyof the pos t ed w arni ngs . Pr i m e Equi pm ental s o pr es ent ed evi dence thatM r . M i nt erhad fai l ed t o l at ch the cha i nl i nk cl os ur e, w eara har d hat , orus e a s afe tybel t . D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , Pr i m e Equi pm entus ed thi s evi dence t o ar gue thatM r . M i nt er- 17-

w as r es pons i bl e forhi s ow n i nj ur i es : “i f M r . M i nt erhad l at ched the cha i ns and/ or puton t he s afe t ybel t , t he ac ci dentw oul d nothave oc curr ed. ” A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 5 7 2 . On De c e mb e r1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e j u ryr e tu rn e d a v e r d i c ti n fa v o ro f P r i me E qui pm enton t he fa i l ur e t o w arn cl ai m . T he courtent er ed the j udgm enton D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e p lain tiff tim e lyfiled h is n o tice o f a p p e a l. A ppeal M r. M in ter ra ise s fo u r iss u e s o n a p p e a l. T h e first tw o re late to h is al t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm ent : H e as s er t s t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed bygr ant i ng Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke the pr oduct liab ili tyc laim f

ro m th e p re trial o rd e r, an d th a t ite rre d a g a in w h e n it d e n ied h is R ul e 15( b) m ot i on t o amend t he pl eadi ngs t o conform t o the evi dence . T he s econd tw o i s s ues r el at e t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs : T he pl ai nt i ff co n tend s tha t th e c o u rtw ron g fu ll yex clud ed the e v iden ce o f P ri m e E q u ipm en t’ s s ubs equentr emedi al m eas ur es and thati ti m pr oper l yadmi t t ed the evi dence t hat h e fa ile d to w e a r a h a rd h a t o r s a fe ty b e lt o n th e d a yo f th e a c c id e n t. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . A m endm ent t o t he P l eadi ngs M r. M in ter ’s a p p e a l ce n ter s o n th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to p e rm it h im to p u rs u e a n a lte ra tio n p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im a g a in s t P ri m e E q u ip m e n t. Pr ocedur al l y , t hi s ques t i on ar os e i n tw o or der s of the di s tr i ctcourt : t he or der- 18-

s t r i ki ng t he pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct s l i abi l i tycl ai m fr om the pr etr i al or der , and the or derdeny i ng hi s R ul e 15( b) m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntt o conform t o the e v id e n c e . M r. M in ter ra ise s b o th iss u e s o n a p p e a l, bu t n e e d s to p re v a il o n o n ly one. W e addr es s hi s ar gum entt hatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n s tr i ki ng the a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim f ro m th e p re trial o rd e r. F o r p u rp o se s o f th is opi ni on, w e as s um e w i t houtdeci di ng, thatM r . M i nt erdi d notpr oper l ypl ead the al t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m i n hi s fede r al cour tcompl ai nt , and thatthe p ro p o s e d p re tr ia l o rd e r w a s th e fir s t tim e M r. M in te r r a is e d th e a lte ra tio n c la im . Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) pr ovi des that , aft era r es pons i ve p lead ing h as b ee n serv ed , a p artym ayam en d it s p lead ing “o n lyb yleav e o f c o u rt o r b yw ritten c o n se n t o f th e a d v e rse p a rty .” T h e R u le s p e c ifies th a t “le a v e sh a ll b e f re e lyg iv e n w h e n ju stic e so re q u ire s.” A lth o u g h th e p lain tiff in c lu d e d h is pr oduct s l i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm enti n the pr opos ed pr etr i al or der w i t houtfi l i ng a form al R ul e 15( a) m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai nt , “[w ] hen an i s s ue i s s etfor t h i n t he pr etr i al or der , i ti s notnece s s aryt o amend pr evi ous l yfi l ed pl eadi ngs beca us e the pr etr i al or deri s the contr ol l i ng documentfortr i al . ” Wi ls on v . Mu c ka la , 303 F. 3d 1207, 1215 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . C ons equent l y , M r . M i nt er ’ s att empt t o add a ne w cl ai m t o the pr etr i al or derw as t he equi val entof as ki ng l eave t o amend hi s compl ai nt , and mustbe e v a lu a te d b yth e c o u rt u n d e r t h e s ta n d a rd s s e t fo rt h in R u le 1 5 (a ). See Wi ls on ,- 19-

303 F. 3d at1215; 6A C har l es A l an W r i ght , A r thurR . M i l l er& M aryK ayK ane, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 1 5 2 5 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 0 ).

“ [ T ]h e g ra n t o f

lea v e to a m e n d th e p lea d in g s p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 5 (a ) is w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , ” Zeni th R adi o C or p. v. Haz el t i ne Rese ar ch, Inc. , 401 U . S. 321, 330 ( 1971) , and w e w i l l notr ever s e the court ’ s deci s i on “abs entan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Wes s elv. C i t y of A l buquer que , 299 F. 3d 1186, 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). B u t th e R u le itse lf s t a t e s t ha t“ l e a ve s ha l l be fr e e l ygi ve n when j us t i c e s o r e qu i r e s . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (a ). T h e p u rp o se o f th e R u le is to p ro v id e lit ig a n ts “ th e m a x im u m o p p o rtu n ity foreac h cl ai m t o be dec i ded on i t s m er i t s r atherthan on pr ocedur al ni cet i es . ” Har di n v. Mani t ow oc- Forsythe C or p. , 6 9 1 F . 2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). In Fo m a n v . D a v is , 3 7 1 U .S . 1 7 8 (1 9 6 2 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld : I f the under l y i ng fac t s orci r cumst ance s r el i ed upon bya pl ai nt i ff maybe a p ro p e r su bjec t o f

re lief, h e o u g h t to b e a ffo rd e d a n o p p o rtu n ityto tes t h is cl ai m on t he mer i t s . I n t he abs ence of anyappar entordecl ar ed r eas on— s uch as undue del ay , bad fa i th ordi l at or ym ot i ve on the partof the m o v a n t, rep e a ted fa ilu re to c u re d e ficie n c ies b ya m e n d m e n ts p re v io u sly al l ow ed, undue pr ej udi ce t o the oppos i ng partybyvi r tue of a l l ow ance of t he amendm ent , fut i l i t yof amendm ent , et c. — the l eave s oughts houl d, as t he rul es r equi r e, be “f

r eel ygi ven. ” Id . a t 1 8 2 (q u o tin g F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a )); s ee als o D uncan v. Manager, D ept . of Sa fety , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Frank v. U. S. West , 3 F. 3d 1357, 1365 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) . T he di s t r i ctcour ts truck M r . M i nt er ’ s al t er at i on pr oduct l i abi l i t ycl ai m fr om t he pr etr i al or deron the gr ounds thati tw as pr ej udi ci al andNe i t h e rp a r t yh a s a r g u e d t h a tRu l e 1 6 ( b ) i s r e l e v a n tt o t h i s q u e s t i o n . S o me 4 C i r cui t s hol d t hata partys eeki ng t o amend t he pl eadi ngs , aft ert he dea dl i ne s et fors uch amendm ent s i n t he s chedul i ng or der , m us ts at i s fya “good c aus e” re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , P arker v. C olum bia P i ct ures Ind us. , 204 F. 3d 326, 340 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); Haw thor ne Land C o. v. O cci dentalC hem . C or p. , 431 F. 3d 221, 2 2 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Lear y v. D aes chner , 3 4 9 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); In re Mi lk Prods . A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , 1 9 5 F .3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 7

– 3 8 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Johns on v. Mam m oth R ecr eat i ons , Inc. , 975 F. 2d 604, 607–08 ( 9th C i r . 1992) . T hi s r equi r es t he movi ng par t yt o s how t hati thas been di l i genti n att empt i ng t o m eett he d e a d lin e s , w h ic h m e a n s it m u s t p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te e x p la n a tio n fo r a n yd e la y . See P arker , 2 0 4 F .3 d a t 3 4 0

– 4 1 ; Haw thor ne , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 2 2 8 ; L eary , 349 F. 3d at 9 0 7 ; In re Mi lk P rods. , 1 9 5 F .3 d a t 4 3 7

– 3 8 ; Johns on , 9 7 5 F .2 d a t 6 0 9

– 1 0 . T h is C i r cui tadopt ed a s i m i l ari nt erpr et at i on of R ul e 16( b) ’ s “good ca us e” r equi r ement in th e c o n te x t o f

c o u n te rc la im s a s s e rt e d a f te r t h e s c h e d u lin g o rd e r d e a d lin e , SILFLO , Inc. v. SFH C, Inc. , 917 F. 2d 1507, 1518–19 ( 10th C i r . 1990) , buthas not d o n e s o in th e c o n te x t o f a n a m e n d m e n t to th e c o m p la in t. W e do notdeci de w hethera partys eeki ng t o amend i t s pl eadi ngs aft ert he sc h e d u lin g o rd e r d e a d lin e m u st s h o w “ g o o d c a u se ” fo r th e a m e n d m e n t u n d e r R u le 16( b) i n addi t i on t o t he R ul e 15( a) r equi r ement s . N ei therpartyr ai s es t he ques t i on, and gi ven the r ough s i m i l ar i tybetw een the “good c aus e” s t andar d of R ul e 16( b) and our“undue de l ay ” ana l y s i s underR ul e 15, i tw oul d notaffectt he out come of t hi s cas e.

- 20- u n tim e ly . P reju d ice a n d tim e lin e ss a re o b v io u slyc lo se lyre late d , b u t w e w ill eval uat e ea ch. 4 1. T i m el i n ess I n Fom an , t he Supr eme C our tl i s t ed “undue del ay ” as one of the j us t i fi cat i ons fordeny i ng a mot i on t o amend. 371 U . S. at182. E m phas i s i s on t he adj ect i ve: “Lat enes s does notof i t s el f j us t i fyt he deni al of the amendm ent . ” R . E . B . , Inc. v. R als t on P ur i na C o. , 5 2 5 F .2 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ). R u le 15( a) does notr es t r i cta part y ’ s abi l i tyt o amend i t s pl eadi ngs t o a part i cul ars t age in th e a c tio n . F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ); see also 6 W ri g h t, M ille r & K a n e , Feder alT hi s i s t he maj or i t yrul e, fol l ow ed byt he Second, Four th, Fi fth, Si xth, 5 S e v e n th , E ig h th , N in th a n d D .C . C ir c u its . See B l ock v. FirstB l oo d A ssocs. , 988 F. 2d 344, 350 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( “M er e del ay , how ever , abs enta s how i ng of bad fai t h orundue pr ej udi ce, does notpr ovi de a ba s i s fora di s tr i ctcourtt o denyt he rig h t to a m e n d .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); E dw ar ds v. C i t y of G oldsboro , 178 F. 3d 231, 242 ( 4th C i r . 1999) ( “D el ayal one i s an i ns uffi ci ent r eas on t o denyl eave t o amend. R ather , t he del aym us tbe ac compani ed by (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 21- P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 1 4 8 8 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 0 ). H o w e v e r, “[ a ] p a rtyw h o d e lays in seeki ng an am end m ent i s act i ng con traryt o the spi ri tof the rul e and runs the ri sk of the courtdeny i ng perm i s s i on beca us e of the pas s age of t i m e. ” Id . T he l onger t he del ay , “the more l i kel yt he mot i on t o amend w i l l be deni ed, as pr otr act ed del ay , w i t h i t s at t endantbur dens on the opponentand the court , i s i t s el f a s uffi ci entr eas on fort he courtt o w i thhol d perm i s s i on t o amend. ” Stei r v. G i rl Scouts of

the USA , 3 8 3 F .3 d 7 , 1 2 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); see also USX C or p. v. B arnh art , 395 F. 3d 161, 167 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[D ] el ayal one i s an i ns uffi ci ent g r o u n d t o d e n yl e a v e t o a me n d . Ats o me p o i n t , h o we v e r , d e l a ywi l l b e c o me u n d u e , p lac in g a n u n w a rra n ted b u rd e n o n th e c o u rt, o r w ill b e b e c o m e p reju d icia l, pl aci ng an unfa i rbur den on the oppos i ng party . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d )) . T h e c o u rt s o f a p p ea l are n o t i n ag ree m en t r eg ard ing the s h o w ing n ec essa ry t o es t abl i s h “undue” del ay . Som e ci r cui t s hol d thatan amendm entm aybe deni ed fo r u n d u e d e lay on lyif th e trial c o u rt fin d s p reju d ice , b a d fa ith , fu til ity , o r (in s om e ci r cui t s ) a s ubs t ant i al bur den on the court . T hi s C i r cui t , how ever , focus es 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 p reju d ice , b a d fa ith , o r f u til ity .”) ( in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); Mayeaux v. La. Heal th Ser vs . & Indem . C o. , 3 7 6 F .3 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ [ D ]e lay alo n e is an i ns uffi ci entbas i s fordeni al of l eave t o amend: T he del aym us tbe undue , i.e ., i tm us tpr ej udi ce the nonmovi ng partyori m pos e unw arr ant ed bur dens on the c o u rt.”); Wade v. Knoxvi l l e Ut i ls . B d. , 259 F. 3d 452, 458–59 ( 6th C i r . 2001) ( “D el aybyi t s el f i s nots uffi ci entr eas on t o denya mot i on t o amend. N ot i ce a nd s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce t o t he oppos i ng partyar e cr i t i cal fac t or s i n det erm i ni ng w h e th e r a n a m e n d m e n t sh o u ld b e g ra n ted .”); D oher t y v. D avy Songe r, Inc. , 195 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 2 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ [ M ]e re d e lay, w ith o u t a s h o w in g o f p reju d ice , is n o t su fficie n t to d e n yth e a m e n d m e n t.”); D oe v. C as s el , 4 0 3 F .3 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ D e lay alo n e is n o t en o u g h to d e n ya m o tio n to a m e n d ; p reju d ice to th e n o n m o v a n t m u st a lso b e sh o w n .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); B ow l es v. R eade , 1 9 8 F .3 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ U n d u e d e lay by i tse lf . . . is i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fydeny i ng a mot i on t o amend . . . [abs ent ] a cont empora neous s p e c i fi c fi n d i n g o f

p r ej u d i c e t o t h e o p p o s i n g p a r ty, b a d fa i th b y th e m o v i n g p a r t y, o r f u til ityo f

a m e n d m e n t.”); A tch in so n v . D ist. o f C o lu m b ia , 73 F. 3d 418, 426 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ C o n sid e ra tio n o f w h e th e r d e lay i s u n d u e , h o w e v e r, sh o u ld gener al l yt ake i nt o acc ountt he ac t i ons of otherpart i es and the pos s i bi l i tyof any resu lt ing p rejud ice.”).

- 22- p rim a rilyo n th e re a so n s fo r th e d e lay. W e h a v e h e ld th a t d e n ial o f lea v e to a m e n d is a p p ro p ria te “ w h e n th e p a rtyfili n g th e m o tio n h a s n o a d e q u a te expl anat i on forthe del ay . ” Frank v. U. S. West , 3 F . 3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 5

– 6 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); s ee als o D ur ham v. X er ox C or

p. , 18 F. 3d 836, 840 ( 10th C i r . 1994) (“[ U ]ne x p lai n ed d elayalon e jus ti fies the d istri ct co u rt ’s discre ti o n aryd ec isi o n . ”); Fed. Ins . C o. v. G at es Lear j etC or p. , 8 2 3 F .2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ C o u rts have de ni ed l eave t o amend i n s i tuat i ons w her e the movi ng partycannot demonstr at e exc us abl e negl ect . Forexampl e, cour t s have de ni ed l eave t o amendT h is a p p ro a c h is a ls o fo llo w e d b yth e F ir s t, T h ir d , a n d E le v e n th C ir c u its . 6 See Hayes v. New E ngl and Mi l lw ork D is tr i bs . , Inc. , 6 0 2 F . 2 d 1 5 , 1 9

– 2 0 (1st C ir . 1979) ( “[W ] her e, as her e, a cons i der abl e per i od of t i m e has pas s ed betw een the fi l i ng of the compl ai ntand the mot i on t o amend, court s have pl ace d the bur den upon t he movantt o s how s om e val i d r eas on forhi s negl ectand del ay . ” ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); A r thurv. Maers k, Inc. , 4 3 4 F . 3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2006) ( “W hen a pa r t yfai l s t o t ake a dvant age of pr evi ous oppor tuni t i es t o amend, w ith o u t ad e q u a te e x p lan a tio n , lea v e to a m e n d is p ro p e rlyd e n ied .”); A ndrx P har m . , Inc. v. E l an C or p. , 421 F. 3d 1227, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hat[Pl ai nt i ff’ s ] expl anat i ons fori t s del ayi n fi l i ng for lea v e to a m e n d d o n o t d e m o n stra te th a t ju stic e re q u ire d th e g ra n t o f th e m o tio n to a m e n d .” ).

- 23- w her e the movi ng par tyw as aw ar e of the fa ct s on w hi ch the amendm entw as b ase d fo r som e ti m e p ri o r t o the fil ing o f th e m o ti o n to am en d . ”). 6 C our t s w i l l pr oper l ydenya mot i on t o amend w hen i tappea r s t hatt he pl ai nt i ff i s us i ng R ul e 15 t o m ake the compl ai nt“a movi ng t ar get , ” Vi er now v. E ur i pi des D ev. C or

p. , 15 7 F . 3d 78 5, 80 0 (10th C i r. 19 98 ), t o “sal vag e a l ostcase byunt i m el ys ugges t i on of new t heor i es of r ecove ry , ” Hayes v. Whi tm an , 264 F. 3d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), to p re se n t “th e o rie s s e ria tim ” in a n e ffo rt to a v o id d is m is s a l, P al l ot t i no v. C i t y of R i o R ancho , 3 1 F . 3 d 1 0 2 3 , 1 0 2 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ), ort o “know i ngl ydel ay [] r ai s i ng [an] i s s ue unt i l t he ‘ eve of t r i al , ’ ” Wal t ers v. Monar ch Li

f e Ins . C o. , 5 7 F .3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). M r. M i nterat t em pted t o asser tan alt erat i on produ ctl i abil i tycl ai m against Pr i m e Equi pm entj us tt hr ee w eeks befor e the s chedul ed s t ar tof tr i al ; and the di s t r i ctcourtt ook not e of hi s t ar di nes s w hen i ts truck the amended cl ai m fr om t he- 24-

pr etr i al or der . C our t s “do notnor m al l yexpec tt o s ee c l ai m s ordefe ns es not c o n ta in e d in th e p le a d in g s a p p e a ri n g fo r t h e fir s t tim e in th e p re tr ia l o rd e r.” Wilso n v . Mu c ka la , 303 F. 3d 1207, 1215–16 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . I n thi s cas e, how ever , t he pl ai nt i ff ha s pr ovi ded an a dequat e expl anat i on forthe del ay , and th e re fo re h is a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim is n o t “u n tim e ly ” o r “ u n d u ly del ay ed. ” W hen the pl ai nt i ff f

i l ed hi s compl ai nton M ar ch 20, 2002, the evi dence s uppl i ed byt he defendant s dur i ng di s coveryi n the s t at e ca s e l ed hi m t o bel i eve th a t E c o n o m yh a d m a n u fa c tu re d a n d s o ld th e s c is s o r l if t in a d e fe c tiv e c o n d itio n . Fort he fi r s tfi ve y ear s of thi s l i t i gat i on, Pr i m e Equi pm entm ai nt ai ned thati thad boughtt he l i ftfr om E conomyw i thoutthe s ol i d guar dr ai l , and pr es ent ed evi dence t o t hateffect . I n acc or dance w i t h thi s appar ents t at e of the fa ct s , the s tr i ppeddow n compl ai ntfi l ed i n fede r al courti ncl uded defect i ve des i gn and m anufa ctur i ng cl ai m s agai ns tE conomy , w hi l e hol di ng Pr i m e Equi pm ent r es pons i bl e fornegl i gentm ai nt enanc e and r epai r( i n addi t i on t o s ui ng both for i ns uffi ci entw arni ngs ) . O n M ay21, 2003, how ever , one w eek a ft erthe cl os e of d isco v ery , E co n o m ysu b m itted a n ex p ert w itn ess re p o rtstat ing that the lift ’s guar dr ai l s y s t em had been al t er ed s om et i m e af t erl eavi ng i t s contr ol . W i thi n a mo n t h , P r i me Eq u i p me n tr e v e r s e d i t s p o s i t i o n a n d s t i p u l a t e d th a tEc o n o my m an u fa cture d an d so ld the scisso r l iftw ith fo u r solid g u ard rail s. T h e p lai n ti ff ’s at t empt t o as s erta new cl ai m i n the pr etr i al or der

— t o s hi ftfr om a manufactur erW hen the pl ai nt i ff a s s ert ed hi s pr oduct s l i abi l i tycl ai m i n the pr etr i al 7 o rd e r, P rim e E q u ip m e n t o bjec ted o n th e g ro u n d th a t itw a s a “ b e late d a ttem p t to a d d a p ro d u c ts lia b ility c la im a g a in s t it, fo r t h e v e ry fir s t tim e .” P re tr ia l O rd e r 6 . T h e p lain tiff

re sp o n d e d th a t h is c o m p lain t fa irlye n c o m p a ss e d th e c laim b e c a u se it i dent i fi ed both Pr i m e Equi pm entand Econom yas “s el l er s of the s ci s s orl i ft , ” and t her efor e “a l l eged fact s t o s uppor tr ecove ry[fr om Pr i m e Equi pm ent ] bas ed upon p ro d u c ts lia b ility.” A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . 2 4 3

– 4 4 .

- 25- p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim a g a in st E c o n o m yto a n a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim a g a i n s tP r i me Eq u i p me n t

— wa s a r e s p o n s e t o th e s e l a t e d i s c l o s u r e s f r o m P r i me E qu i pm ent and E con om y . C on sequen t l y , this case i s di st i ng uis hab l e from tho se w her e court s deni ed l eave t o amend becaus e the “pl ai nt i ff w as aw ar e of a l l the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s pr opos ed amended compl ai ntw as bas ed pr i ort o fi l i ng t he or i gi nal compl ai nt . ” McKnightv. K i m ber l y C lark C or

p. , 149 F. 3d 1125, 1130 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). D ur i ng or al ar gum ent , Pr i m e Equi pm entar gued thatthe amendm entw as unt i m el ybeca us e M r . M i nt erw ai t ed more than s i x m onths aft erhe l earned of the J o in t S tip u la tio n b e fo re a s s e rt in g th e a lte ra tio n p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im a g a in s t it. T he r ecor d s how s t hatt he pl ai nt i ff de l ay ed i n as s er t i ng the al t er at i on pr oduct liab ili tyc laim a g a in st P rim e E q u ip m e n t b e c a u se h e b e liev e d it w a s a lre a d yfa irly encompas s ed by hi s pl eadi ngs . I ndeed, on appea l t he pl ai nt i ff c ont i nues t o t ake 7 th a t p o sitio n , arg u in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in strik in g th e p ro d u c ts liab ili ty cl ai m fr om t he pr etr i al or der . A l though w e do notr eac h thatar gum ent , i n l i ghtof th e lib e ra l p lea d in g re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 8 (a ) w e c o n sid e r it a c o lo ra b le- 26-

a rg u m e n t. In re tro sp e c t, th e p lain tiff c o u ld h a v e a v o id e d th is e n tire c o n tro v e rsy i f h e h a d filed a fo rm a l m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t so o n a f ter th e d e fe n d a n ts ent er ed i nt o t he J oi ntSt i pul at i on. N onethel es s , hi s as s um pt i on r egar di ng the s c o p e o f h i s o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g c o n s t i tu t e s a n e x c u s a b l e c a u s e fo rth e d e l a y, esp ec ial lyin li g h t of

the d efen d an t’ s o w n d il atorine ss in w ait ing u n ti l disco v ery w a s c lo se d a n d th e trial w a s s h o rtlysc h e d u led to b e g in to sp rin g th e fa c t th a t it w as c h an g ing it s p o sit ion reg ard ing a k eyfa ct i n the c ase . C o n seq u en tl y , M r. M i nt er ’ s al t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m cannotbe cons i der ed “unt i m el y ” or “undul ydel ay ed. ” 2. U ndu e Prej udi ce T he s econd, and mosti m por t ant , fac t ori n deci di ng a mot i on t o amend t he p le a d in g s , is w h e th e r t h e a m e n d m e n t w o u ld p reju d ic e th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . “R u le 15 . . . w as d esig n ed to fac il it ate the am en d m en t of p lead ing s ex ce p t w h ere pr ej udi ce t o t he oppos i ng part yw oul d r es ul t . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Hougham , 364 U .S . 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (1 9 6 0 ). See als o E vans v. McD onald’s C or p. , 936 F. 2d 1087, 1090–91 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( “A s a gene r al rul e, a pl ai nt i ff s houl d notbe pr event ed fr om pur s ui ng a val i d cl ai m . . . , pr ovi ded al w ay s t hata l at e s hi fti n the thrus tof t he ca s e w i l l notpr ej udi ce the otherpartyi n m ai nt ai ni ng hi s defe ns e upon the m e rits.” ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); E as t er n Food Ser vs . , Inc. v. P o n ti fi ca l C a tho li c Un iv. S erv s. A ss’n , 357 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( “O nce the adver s aryhas ans w er ed, amendm enti s no l ongeral l ow ed as of r i ght , Fed. R . C i v.- 27-

P. 15( a) , buti n gener al perm i s s i on i s l i ber al l ygr ant ed w her e ther e i s no p reju d ic e .” ); 6 W ri g h t, M ile r & K a n e , Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 1487 ( 2d ed. 1990) ( “Perhaps t he mosti m por t antfac t orl i s t ed bythe C our tand the m os tfr equentr eas on fordeny i ng l eave t o amend i s thatthe oppos i ng partyw i l l be p reju d ic e d if

th e m o v a n t is p e rm itte d to a lte r h is p le a d in g .” ). C o u rts typ ica llyfin d p reju d ice o n lyw h e n th e a m e n d m e n t u n fa irlya ffe c ts t he defendant s “i n t erm s of pr epar i ng thei rdefe ns e t o the amendm ent . ” P at t on v. G uyer , 443 F. 2d 79, 86 ( 10t h C i r . 1971) . M os toft en, thi s occur s w hen the a m e n d e d c laim s a rise o u t o f a su bjec t m a tter d iffe re n t f ro m w h a t w a s s e t fo rth in th e c o m p la in t a n d ra is e s ig n ific a n t n e w fa c tu a l is s u e s . C ompa re Hom v. Sq uir e , 81 F. 3d 969, 973 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( fi ndi ng pr ej udi ci al a mot i on “t o add an e n t i r e l yn e w a n d d i ffe r e n tc l a i m t o [ th e p l a i n t i ff ’ s ] s u i tl i t t l e mo r e th a n two m o n th s b e fo re tr ia l” ), w ith G i l l et t e v. Tan sy , 17 F. 3d 308, 313 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( fi ndi ng no evi dence of pr ej udi ce w hen the “Pet i t i oner ’ s [amended] cl ai m s tr ack th e fa c tu a l s itu a tio n s s e t fo rt h in h is [ o ri g in a l] c la im s ” ), C hi lders v. Indep. Sch. D is t. No . 1 , 6 7 6 F . 2 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) (ru li n g that the d istri ct co u rt ’s refusal t o all ow an am end m ent w as “part i cular l yegregi ou s i n thi s case because th e s u bje c t m a tte r o f

th e a m e n d m e n t w a s a lr e a d ya lle g e d in th e c o m p la in t” ), and R . E . B . , Inc. v. R als t on P ur i na C o. , 525 F. 2d 749, 751–52 ( 10th C i r . 1975) (fin d in g n o p reju d ice w h e n “ [ t]h e a m e n d m e n ts d id n o t p ro p o se su b sta n tially d iffe re n t is s u e s ” ).- 28-

Pr i m e Equi pm entr epea t edl yas s er t s thatthe addi t i on of an a l t er at i on p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im to th e p le a d in g s w o u ld re s u lt in “ o b v io u s ” p reju d ic e to it, butoffe r s l i t t l e expl anat i on as t o how i tw oul d be pr ej udi ced i n l i ghtof the s i m i l ar i t i es betw een the compl ai ntand the amended cl ai m . T he compl ai nt a ss e rte d a n e g lig e n c e c laim a g a in st P rim e E q u ip m e n t fo r fa ili n g to “ p ro p e rly i n s p e c t , r e p a i ra n d ma i n t a i n t h e l i f t . ” Co mp l a i n t1 . Th e n e w c l a i m a g a i n s tP r i me E qui pm entw as for“mat er i al l yal t er [i ng] the s ubj ects ci s s orl i ftbyr emoval of the [] so li d g u ard rail safetyfe ature . ” A p p ell an t’ s A p p . 8 1 . W h il e the tw o claim s are di ffe r enti n form , t her e i s a s i gni fi cantover l ap i n the fa ctual underpi nni ngs and defe ns es . B ot h cl ai m s r el yon t he pr opos i t i on thatM r . M i nt erw as i nj ur ed b e c a u se “ th e sc iss o r lift a s p ro v id e d to [ h im ] w a s in a c o n d iti o n w ith a d e tac h a b le c h a in lin k fitt e d in p lac e o f a so lid ste e l g u a rd ra il[, w h ich ] . . . w a s c o n tra ryto es t abl i s hed s afe t ys t andar ds . ” A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 37–38. M or eover , m os tof Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s defe ns es t o t he negl i gence cl ai m appl yw i th equal for ce t o t he pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m , i ncl udi ng i t s defe ns es thatthe l i ftw as s afe fori t s i nt ended us e, t hati tdi d notvi ol at e the appl i cabl e A N SI orO SH A s t andar ds atthe t i m e of m an u fa cture , that itw as n o t defec ti v e o r un rea so n ab lyd an g ero u s, an d that M r. M in ter ’s a c tio n s w e re th e so le c a u se o f th e a c c id e n t. P rim e E q u ip m e n t’s o n ly d e fe n se to th e n e g lig e n c e c laim th a t itc o u ld n o t u se a g a in st th e p ro d u c t li a b ili ty c la im is c o m p a ra tiv e n e g lig e n c e , w h ic h w o u ld in c lu d e th e m a riju a n a e v id e n c e . M o re o v e r, P rim e E q u ip m e n t d e fe n d e d a g a in st a re taile r’s p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim- 29-

i n t he under l y i ng s t at e courtact i on, and al l of the di s coverym at er i al s fr om that case w ere avai l able t o P ri m e E qu i pm ent i n it s defen se bel ow . T hese circu m stan ce s b eli e P ri m e E q u ipm en t’ s arg u m en t th at i t w as u n p rep are d fo r M r. M in te r’ s la te a s s e rt io n o f a n a lte ra tio n p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im . P rim e E q u ip m e n t’s c laim o f p reju d ice th u s re sts , in r e a lity , o n th e v iab ili ty of tw o defe ns es i tar gues i tw oul d have pr epar ed i f i thad know n aboutthe a l t e r a t i o n p r o d u c tl i a b i l i t yc l a i m a ta n e a r l i e rs t a g e i n th e l i t i g a t i o n . F i r s t , P r i me E qui pm ental l eges thati tw oul d have c onduct ed more di s coveryt o det erm i ne w ho w as r es pons i bl e foral t er i ng t he l i ft . Second, i tar gues thati tneverw oul d have s i gned the J oi ntSt i pul at i on, w hi ch hel ped t o exoner at e Econom yfr om the pr oduct lia b ility c la im , if

it th o u g h t th e re w a s a p ro d u c t lia b ility c la im a g a in s t it a s w e ll. P rim e E q u ip m e n t co n ten d s th a t itw o u ld h a v e b e e n p reju d ice d b yth e late addi t i on of an a l t er at i on pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m beca us e “the evi dence w as i nco nclusi ve as t o w ho al t ered” t he li ft , and i tw ou l d h ave “d i scovered thi s case up di ffe r ent l y ” i f i tt houghtt he ca s e “w as aboutal t er at i on. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . 6–7, 12. T he Pl ai nt i ff c ount er s t hat“[t ] he fa ctthat‘ Pr i m e [Equi pm ent ] r emoved t he b a r’ is e v id e n t f

ro m th e [ Jo in t] S tip u latio n , an d th e R e c o rd ,” A p p e llan t’s R e p ly B r. 2 , s in c e P ri m e E q u ip m e n t s tip u la te d th a t th e “ s c is s o r l if t w a s . . . m an u fa cture d an d so ld b yE co n o m yC o . w ith a so li d g u ard rail aro u n d the e n ti re upperper i m et erof the s ci s s orl i ftpl at form , ” and that“[w ] hen Pr i m e Equi pm ent s ol d t he s ci s s orl i ft , t he s ol i d guar dr ai l had bee n r emoved fr om the entryend andPr i m e Equi pm entar gues t hatt he “[ e] vi dence i ndi cat ed thati tw as not 8 P rim e [ E q u ip m e n t] th a t alte re d th e lift,” A p p e llee ’s B r. 2 2 , b u t th e e v id e n c e it r efe r s t o i s t he t es t i m onyof a w i tnes s w ho cl ai m ed thatE conomyal t er ed the l i ft

— a pos i t i on t hatPr i m e Equi pm entexpl i ci t l ydi s avow ed i n the J oi nt S tip u la tio n .

- 30- r epl ace d w i t h a [] chai n entr y . ” Pr etr i al O r der8. N onethel es s , Pr i m e Equi pm ent m a in tain s th a t th e lift m a yh a v e b e e n a ltere d b yso m e o n e e lse . D u rin g a rg u m e n ts b e fo r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , P r i me E q u i p me n te x p l a i n e d th a tE c o n o myh a d “ two [s al es ] i nvoi ces on t he s ame day ; one [s ci s s orl i ft ] goes t o [a c om panynamed] F o r t e Re n t s u p n o r t h s o me p l a c e , a n d th e o th e ro n e g o e s t o . . . P r i me [ E q u ip m e n t].” A p p e llee ’s B r. 1 2 . P rim e E q u ip m e n t sp e c u late s th a t F o rte R e n ts m ayhave modi fi ed the guar dr ai l s y s t em on t he l i fti tboughtfr om E conomy , and th e n s o ld th a t lif

t to P ri m e E q u ip m e n t. A l t hough an amendm entm aybe pr ej udi ci al i f i t s t i m i ng pr event s the d e fe n d a n tf

r o m p u r s u i n g a p o t e n t i a l l yp r o mi s i n g l i n e o f d e fe n s e , P r i me E q u ip m e n t’s a ss e rtio n th a t F o rte R e n ts m a yh a v e a ltere d th e lift a n d so ld it t o P r i me Eq u i p me n ti s fa rt o o s p e c u l a t i v e t o s u p p o r ts u c h a fi n d i n g . P r i me E qui pm entdoes notci t e anyevi dence i ndi cat i ng thati tpur chas ed the l i ftfr om For t e R ent s . I n fac t , befor e Pr i m e Equi pm entent er ed i nt o the J oi ntSt i pul at i on,

8 i tar gued thati tpur chas ed the l i ftfr om E conomyw i th a cha i nl i nk entry ; and at t r i al one of Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s empl oy ees t es t i fi ed thatt he companyboughtt he l i ft“br and new ” fr om E conomy , and that“Pr i m e [Equi pm ent ] di d notbuyus edA l t hough Pr i m e Equi pm entm i ghtw i s h t o i m pl ead the ups tr eam 9 d istrib u to r, th e fa c t th a t itc o u ld n o t d o so in th is a c tio n d o e s n o t co n stitu te pr ej udi ce. I f Pr i m e Equi pm entw er e t o be found l i abl e underan al t er at i on pr oduct (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 31- e q u ip m e n t fo r r e n ta l.” A p p e lle e ’s S u p p . A p p . 8 1 ; A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . 3 1 1 . M or eover , i f ther e w as anyevi dence thatFor t e R ent s w as r es pons i bl e forthe alt era ti o n , itsh o u ld h av e su rfa ce d d u ri n g the u n d erly ing stat e c o u rtac ti o n , w h ere Pr i m e Equi pm entw as defe ndi ng agai ns ta r et ai l erpr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m and coul d have i m pl eade d anyups t r eam di s tr i but or . Pr i m e Equi pm enthad i ncent i ve a n d o p p o rtu n ityto c o n d u c t d isc o v e ryo n th is iss u e d u rin g th e u n d e rly in g sta te cour tl i t i gat i on, fr om w hi ch mostof the di s coveryi n thi s cas e w as gather ed, and w e th e re fo re fin d n o s u p p o rt fo r i ts c la im o f p reju d ic e . M o re im p o rta n tly , h o w e v e r, P rim e E q u ip m e n t’s c laim o f p reju d ice fa ils beca us e i t s att empt t o pi n r es pons i bi l i tyforthe al t er at i on on an ups tr eam d i s t r i b u t o ri s n o ta d e fe n s e t o a n a l t e r a t i o n p r o d u c tl i a b i l i tyc l a i m. Ev e n i f P r i me E qui pm entcoul d pr oduce e vi dence t o s uppor ti t s theorythatFor t e R ent s al t er ed t he l i ft , “[i ] n a s t r i ctl i abi l i t yact i on i ti s i m m at er i al t o the pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e thatt he defe cti n t he pr oductw as notcaus ed bythe di s tr i but or . ” B r aden v. Hendr i cks , 6 9 5 P . 2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 0 ( Ok l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . Un d e rOk l a h o ma l a w, i ti s e n o u g h th a tP r i me E q u ip m e n t a d m its to s e llin g th e lif t in its a lte re d c o n d itio n . Id . C o n s e q u e n t l y, t her e i s no m er i tt o Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s cl ai m thatthe amendm enti s pr ej udi ci al b e c a u se it w a s p re v e n ted f ro m a rg u in g th a t F o rte R e n ts a ltere d th e lift. 9( . . . cont i nued) 9 l i abi l i t yt heory , and af t ert he j udgm enti tdi s cover ed evi dence es t abl i s hi ng that For t e R ent s al t er ed the l i ft , Pr i m e Equi pm entcoul d fi l e a s epar at e ac t i on for in d e m n ity a g a in s t F o rt e R e n ts a s a n u p s tr e a m d is tr ib u to r. See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 4 (a ); O k la. S tat. tit . 1 2 § 2 0 1 4 ; Stat e Farm Mut. A uto. Ins. C o. v. P erry , 104 P . 3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 3 8

– 3 9 & n . 3 (O k la. C iv. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ).

- 32- Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s s econd c l ai m of pr ej udi ce a r i s es outof the J oi nt St i pul at i on. D ur i ng t he under l y i ng s t at e courtact i on, w her e the pl ai nt i ff a s s er t ed negl i gence and pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m s agai ns tboth defe ndant s , Pr i m e Equi pm ent fil ed a c ross -claim ag ains t E co n o m yfo r i n d em n ityfro m the p lai n ti ff ’s ma n u fa c tu r e rp r o d u c tl i a b i l i t yc l a i m. Th e J o i n tS t i p u l a t i o n p r e v e n t e d P r i me E qui pm entfr om fi l i ng a s i m i l arm ot i on i n the fe der al cas e, and Pr i m e Equi pm ent ar gues t hati t“neve rw oul d have made s uch a s t i pul at i on had ther e bee n an alt era ti o n p rod u ct l iabili tyclaim ag ains t i t. ” A p p ell ee ’s B r. 7 . T h e d istri ct co u rt agr eed w i t h Pr i m e Equi pm ent , concl udi ng thatthe “s om ew hatcur i ous ” J oi nt St i pul at i on w as cons i s t entw i t h Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s pos i t i on that“i tbel i eved that a p ro d u c ts lia b ility c la im h a d n o t b e e n s ta te d a g a in s t it.” O rd e r 6 . W e bel i eve thatconce r ns aboutpr ej udi ce run the otherw ay . I ti s true, as th e d istric t co u rt o b se rv e d , tha t th e stra teg yb e h in d th e Jo in t S tip u latio n is “s om ew hatcur i ous . ” B utone thi ng i s cl ear : the defendant s ’ change i n pos i t i on pot ent i al l yunderm i ned the pl ai nt i ff’ s ent i r e pr oduct s l i abi l i tycas e. D ur i ng the first fiv e y e a rs o f

th e lit ig a tio n , w h e n th e c o m p lain t w a s fo rm u late d a n d u n til aft ercompl et i on of di s covery , Pr i m e Equi pm entm ai nt ai ned and pr es ent ed- 33-

e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e c h a i n l i n k c l o s u r e h a d b e e n i n s t a l l e d o n th e l i f tb e fo r e i tc a me i nt o Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s pos s es s i on. Pl ai nt i ff c r aft ed hi s cas e ac cor di ngl y , s ui ng E conomyfordefe ct i ve des i gn and manufactur e, and Pr i m e Equi pm entfor negl i gentm ai nt enanc e and r epai r . T he r evel at i on of J une 12, 2003 change d al l of t hat . Pr i m e Equi pm entent er ed a J oi ntSt i pul at i on and s ubm i t t ed evi dence thatat t he t i m e the l i ftw as s ol d byE conomy , i tw as equi pped w i th a s ol i d m et al guar dr ai l . A tt he s ame t i m e, Pr i m e Equi pm entfi l ed an e vi dent i arym ot i on lim itin g th e p la in tiff

to “ a n e g lig e n c e th e o ry o n ly.” A p p e lle e ’s S u p p . A p p . 1 0 . U nles s hi s com plai nt w ere const rued t o incl ud e a prod ucts l i abil i tycl ai m against P rim e E q u ip m e n t o r h e w e re p e rm itt e d to a m e n d , M r. M in ter w o u ld b e lef t w ith no pr oduct s l i abi l i t ycl ai m atal l . I f Pr i m e Equi pm entcoul d abs ol ve Econom yof r es pons i bi l i t yfort he defect , and s i m ul t aneous l yavoi d l i abi l i tybyhol di ng the p lain tiff to a n a rro w c o n stru c tio n o f th e c o m p lain t, th is w o u ld m e a n th a t no one c o u ld b e h e ld re sp o n sib le fo r th e a lleg e d d e fe c t. W e d o n o t th in k it i s “pr ej udi ci al ” t o Pr i m e Equi pm entnott o al l ow thi s gambi tt o s ucce ed. O n the c o n tra ry , allo w in g M r. M in ter to a ss e rt a n a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim a g a i n s tP r i me Eq u i p me n ti s n e c e s s a rys o th a th e i s n o tp r ej u d i c e d b yP r i me E q u ip m e n t’ s e x tr a o rd in a ry c h a n g e in its a c c o u n t o f w h a t h a p p e n e d . D ue t o t he r atherunus ual ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the J oi ntSt i pul at i on and Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s obj ect i on t o the pr etr i al or der , w e agr ee w i th the pl ai nt i ff t hatt he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng of pr ej udi ce w as a cl earerr or . “The Feder al R ul es- 34-

o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a re d e s ig n e d to p u t a n e n d to th e ‘s p o rt in g th e o ry o f ju s tic e ,’ byw hi ch the r es ul tdepends on . . . the s ki l l and s tr at egyof couns el . ” Mi d-West P aperP r ods . C o. v. C ont ’ lG r oup, Inc. , 596 F. 2d 573, 579 ( 3d C i r . 1979) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). See Uni t ed Stat es ex r el . P r ecis i on C o. v. Koch Indus . , Inc. , 3 1 F .3 d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ T h e F e d e ra l R u le s . . . acc eptt he pr i nci pl e thatt he purpos e of pl eadi ng i s t o fac i l i t at e a pr operdeci s i on on t he mer i t s . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) ; 6 W r i ght , M i l l er& K ane, Fed. P r ac. & Proc . 3d § 1488 ( 2d ed. 1990) . A l though Pr i m e Equi pm entgave up t he abi l i t yt o fi l e a c r os s - cl ai m agai ns tE conomyw hen i tent er ed i nt o the J oi nt St i pul at i on, i tdi d s o as par tof a s tr at egydes i gned t o avoi d a dec i s i on on the m er i t s of M r . M i nt er ’ s pr oductl i abi l i tycl ai m . Pr i m e Equi pm entcannotnow a rg u e th a t th e a m e n d m e n t to a d d a n a ltera tio n p ro d u c t li a b ili tyc laim a g a in st it is p reju d icia l becaus e of t h e J o i n tS t i p u l a t i o n . W h a t e v e rh a r m b e fa l l s P r i me E qui pm entas a r es ul tof ent er i ng i nt o the J oi ntSt i pul at i on i s of i t s ow n m aki ng, a n d th e re fo re d o e s n o t q u a lif ya s p reju d ic e u n d e r R u le 1 5 (a ). B . E vi dent i ary R ul i ngs M r . M i nt erar gues t hatt he j ur yver di cti n favorof Pr i m e Equi pm enton t he fai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m m us tbe vac at ed bec aus e of tw o al l egedl yerr oneous evi dent i aryrul i ngs i n t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow . T he fi r s tal l eged e rr ori s t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deci s i on t o excl ude the evi dence of Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s r epai rw or k on t he s ci s s orl i ftaft erM r . M i nt er ’ s acc i dent . T he s econd i s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on- 35-

t o admi tevi dence t hatM r . M i nt erw as notw ear i ng a s afe tybel torhar d haton t he dayof h i s i njury . W e revi ew t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s evident i aryrul i ng s for an abu se o f d is c re tio n , Uni t ed Stat es v. Appers on , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 9 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), a n d a ffir m . 1. Sub s equent R em edi al M eas ure F e d e ra l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 7 p ro v id e s: W hen, aft eran i nj ur yorharm al l egedl ycaus ed byan eve nt , m eas ur es ar e t aken that , i f t aken pr evi ous l y , w oul d have made the i nj ur yor harm l es s l i kel yt o occur , evi dence of s ubs equentm eas ur es i s not admi s s i bl e t o pr ove negl i gence , cul pabl e conduc t , a defecti n a pr oduct , a defecti n a pr oduct ’ s des i gn, ora nee d fora w arni ng or i ns t ruct i on. T hi s rul e does notr equi r e the exc l us i on of evi dence of s ubs equentm eas ur es w hen offer ed foranotherpurpos e, s uch as proving o w nershi p, con t rol , or feasi bil i tyof p recaut i on arym easures, if c o n tro v e rte d , o r im p e a c h m e n t. R ul e 407 “c odi fi e[s ] t he gene r al l yacc ept ed comm on l aw rul e w hi ch exc l uded r emedi al m eas ur es w hi ch w er e t aken a ft eran ac ci dent . ” R i m kus v. Northw est C ol o. SkiC or

p. , 706 F. 2d 1060, 1064 ( 10th C i r . 1983) . T he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee ar t i cul at ed tw o r at i onal es forR ul e 407. Fi r s t , i tobs erved thats ubs equent re m e d ial m e a su re s o f ten a re “ n o t in fa c t an a d m iss io n , sin c e th e c o n d u c t is eq u all yco n sist en t w ith injuryb ym ere ac cide n t or th rou g h co n tr ibu tory negl i gence . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 407 advi s or ycomm i t t ee’ s not e. Second, i tfound that t her e i s an i m por t ant“s oci al pol i cyof enc our agi ng peopl e t o t ake, oratl eas tnot di s cour agi ng t hem from t aki ng, s t eps i n fur ther ance of adde d s afe ty . ” Id .; s ee als o R i m kus , 70 6 F . 2d at10 64 . T he ap pli cat i on of R ule 407 in anypart i cularcase- 36-

m u s t b e g u id e d b yth e s e tw o c o n s id e ra tio n s . See Kel l y v. C r ow n E qui

p. C o. , 970 F .2 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). M or e than a y earaft erM r . M i nt er ’ s acc i dent , Pr i m e Equi pm entw as hi r ed t o per form t he annua l s afe t yi ns pect i on on the s ci s s orl i ft . I tm ade a num berof r epai r s w hi l e i thad pos s es s i on of the l i ft . O ne of thos e w as t o r epl ace t he chai nl i nk entr yw i t h a s ol i d m et al guar dr ai l . I n the pr ocee di ngs bel ow , t he pl ai nt i ff s oughtt o i nt r oduce e vi dence of Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s r epai rw or k on the sc iss o r lift. B e fo re th e sta rt o f trial, P rim e E q u ip m e n t filed a m o tio n in lim in e to ex clud e the ev iden ce o f th is r ep air w o rk p u rsua n t t o R u le 40 7 . T h e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s m ot i on, concl udi ng that“the addi t i on of the met al r od r e p r e s e n t s a s u b s e q u e n tr e me d i a l me a s u r e . ” Or d e r , No v . 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , a t4

– 5 . On appea l , t he pl ai nt i ff offer s t w o r eas ons w hyt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng w as e rr o n e o u s . T he pl ai nt i ff f

i r s tcont ends t hatPr i m e Equi pm ents houl d be es t opped fr om ar gui ng t hatt he i ns t al l at i on of a s ol i d guar dr ai l cons t i tut es a “r emedi al m eas ur e” b e c a u s e a t tr ia l it to o k th e p o s itio n th a t a c h a in lin k e n tr yis ju s t a s s a fe a s a b a r. R ul e 407 def

i nes a r emedi al m eas ur e as one that , “i f t aken pr evi ous l y , w oul d have ma d e t h e i nj u r yo rh a r m l e s s l i k e l yt o o c c u r . ” F e d . R. Ev i d . 4 0 7 . I f P r i me E q u ip m e n t h a d , as th e p lain tiff c o n ten d s, “ su b m itt e d e v id e n c e th a t th e [ so lid g u a rd ra il] w o u ld n o t h a v e m a d e th e e v e n t les s lik e lyto o c c u r b e c a u se th e c h a in w as ju st as safe a n d effe cti v e a s the b ar,” A p p ell an t’ s B r. 3 3 , then this C o u rt- 37-

wo u l d h a v e t o a d d r e s s t h e l e g a l u n d e rp i n n i n g s o f th i s e s t o p p e l c l a i m. Ye tP r i me E q u ip m e n t n e v e r a rg u e d th a t a c h a in lin k e n tr yis ju s t a s s a fe a s a s o lid g u a rd ra il. It a rg u e d th a t a “ p ro p e rlyu se d ” c h a in lin k e n tryis ju st a s s a fe a s a so lid g u a rd ra il, and thatM r . M i nt ercaus ed hi s ow n acc i dentbyfai l i ng t o cl os e the cha i nl i nk en tryb efo re o p era ti n g the s cisso r l ift . P ri m e E q u ipm en t do es n o t dispu te M r. M i nt er ’ s cl ai m t hata s ol i d guar dr ai l w oul d have he l ped pr eventhi s fal l . U nder R ul e 407, t her efor e, Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s actof r epl aci ng the cha i nl i nk entryw i t h a s o lid g u a rd ra il is u n d o u b te d ly a s u b s e q u e n t r e m e d ia l m e a s u re . M r. M inter’s seco n d arg u m en t i s tha t th e e v iden ce o f P ri m e E q u ipm en t’ s s ubs equentr epai rw or k on t he l i fts houl d have be en admi t t ed attr i al t o r ebutthe t es t i m onyof one of

Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s w i tnes s es . R ul e 407 s t at es thati t“does notr equi r e the exc l us i on of evi dence of s ubs equentm eas ur es w hen offer ed for anotherpurpos e, s uch as . . . i m peac hm ent . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 407. T he i m peac hm entexce pt i on t o R ul e 407 i s nece s s aryt o pr eventl i t i gant s fr om t aki ng “unfa i radvant age” of the R ul e byadopt i ng a pos i t i on attr i al thati s i ncons i s t ent w ith th e irp re v io u s d e c is io n to ta k e re m e d ia l m e a s u re s a f te r t h e a c c id e n t. Wood v. Mor bark Indus . , Inc. , 70 F. 3d 1201, 1208 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( evi dence of su b seq u en t m o d ifi ca ti o n s ca n b e introd u ce d to reb u t t esti m o n ythat “lef t th e jury w i t h t he i m pr es s i on t hat[the defendant ] had made no m odi fi cat i ons t o the [ p ro d u c t]” ); see also In r e Ai rC r as h D is as t er , 86 F. 3d 498, 531 ( 6th C i r . 1996) (e v id e n c e o f

su b se q u e n t d e sig n c h a n g e s to c o rre c t d e ficie n c ies is a d m iss ib le to- 38-

reb u t a w itn ess’s c lai m that the p rod u ct w as “ stat e o f th e a rt ”); P o ly th a n e S y s ., In c . v . Ma r i n a Ve n t u r e s In t ’ l . , L T D. , 993 F. 2d 1201, 1210–11 ( 5th C i r . 1993) ( evi dence of s ubs equentm odi fi cat i ons i s admi s s i bl e t o i m peac h t es t i m onythatt he p ro d u c t w a s “ o n e o f

th e s tr o n g e s t in th e w o rl d ” ). T h e im p e a c h m e n t ex c e p tio n , h o w e v e r, m u st b e re a d n a rro w ly , les t it s w al l ow t he rul e. A ppl i ed l oos el y , “anyevi dence of s ubs equentr emedi al m easures m i gh tbe thoug ht t o co ntr adictand so i n a sense im peach [a pa rty ’s ] t es t i m ony . ” C omplai ntof C ons ol i dat ed C oalC o. , 1 2 3 F . 3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (e m p h a sis a n d in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). A s th e S e v e n th C irc u it expl ai ned i n P r obus v. K- Mar t, Inc. , 7 9 4 F .2 d 1 2 0 7 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ): I ti s undoubt edl yt rue thatevi dence of s ubs equentr emedi al m eas ur es ca n b e sa id to c o n tr ad ict , an d h en ce , in a s en se, ‘i m p ea ch ’ a defe ndant ’ s cont ent i on t hathe w as exer ci s i ng due ca r e orthat m at er i al s us ed i n t he manufactur e of a pr oductw er e appr opr i at e for t hei ri nt ended a ppl i cat i on. Y etal l ow i ng thatand no more t o s at i s fy t he i m peac hm entexce pt i on w oul d el evat e i tt o the rul e. Id . at 1 2 1 0 . C o n se q u e n tly , the im p e a c h m e n t ex c e p tio n h a s b e e n c o n fin e d to ev iden ce o f su b seq u en t r em ed ial m ea su res tha t i s “n ec essa ryto p rev en t th e jury fr om bei ng m i s l ed. ” Wood , 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 8 ; see also C ompl ai ntof C ons ol i dat ed C oalC o. , 12 3 F . 3d at13 6 (“[T ]he evi den ce offered for i m peach m ent m ust c o n tra d ict th e w itn e ss ’s te stim o n yd ire c tly .”); Har r is on v. Sears , R oebuck& Co. , 981 F. 2d 25, 31 ( 1s tC i r . 1992) ( not i ng thatthe i m peac hm entexce pt i on r equi r es- 39-

“a gr eat [] nexus betw een the s t at ements oughtt o be i m peac hed and the r emedi al m e a s u re ” ). A ccor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i ff, the evi dence of Pr i m e Equi pm ent ’ s s ubs equent r emedi al m eas ur es s houl d have be en admi t t ed attr i al t o r ebutthe t es t i m onyfr om P rim e E q u ip m e n t’s e x p e rt w itn e ss th a t th e c h a in lin k e n tryw a s “ b a sic a lly e q u iv a len t” to a so lid g u a rd ra il. A p p e llan t’s A p p . 4 9 3

– 9 4 . Y e t th is te stim o n yis n o t d ire c tlyc o n tra d icte d b yth e e v id e n c e o f P rim e E q u ip m e n t’s d e c isio n to in sta ll a so lid g u a rd ra il o n th e lift. T h e w itn e ss tes tifie d th a t a c h a in lin k e n tryis “bas i cal l yequi val ent ” t o a s ol i d guar dr ai l “as l ong as [i ti s ] i n pl ace , ” and thatt he chai nl i nk entr yw as notunr eas onabl ydanger ous beca us e “i f [i t ] w oul d have be en pr oper l yl at ched, [M r . M i nt er ] w oul d nothave fal l en outof the s ci s s orl i ftand been i nj ur ed. ” Id . at493–95. T hi s t es t i m onyi s cons i s t entw i th the evi dence at trial th a t th e A N S I sa fe tysta n d a rd s w e re c h a n g e d in 1 9 9 1 to re q u ire so lid guar dr ai l s i n r es pons e t o r eport s of w or ker s oper at i ng the l i ftw i thoutl at chi ng t he c h a in lin k e n try . M o re o v e r, P rim e E q u ip m e n t d id n o t d isp u te th a t a s o lid g u a rd ra il r educe s t he dange rof fa l l s forl i ftoper at or s w ho m i ghtotherw i s e for gett o l at ch t h e c h a i n l i n k e n t r yo rfa i l t o d o s o p r o p e r l y . Co n s e q u e n t l y , th e e v i d e n c e o f P r i me E qui pm ent ’ s s ubs equentr epai rw or k on the guar dr ai l does notfal l w i thi n the im p e a c h m e n t e x c e p tio n to R u le 4 0 7 .- 40-

2. T he Safet y B el t and H ard H at E vi dence M r. M in ter ’s la st a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t th e d istric t co u rt w ro n g f u lly deni ed hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne r egar di ng the evi dence t hathe w as notw ear i ng a s afe t ybel torhar d hatatt he t i m e of the ac ci dent . B oth types of s afe tyequi pm ent w ere av ail ab le t o M r. M inter on the d ayo f th e inc iden t, an d the d istri ct co u rt concl uded thatt he s afe t ybel tand har d hatevi dence “i s admi s s i bl e t o s how P lain tiff ’s c o n d u c t in th e w o rk p lac e . T h e re su lti n g e ffe c t f ro m th e fa ilu re to e m p lo yth e se sa fe tyd e v ice s is a m a tter fo r th e ju ryto c o n sid e r in th e ir del i ber at i ons . ” O r der , N ov. 24, 2003, at3. C ons equent l y , Pr i m e Equi pm entw as all o w ed to arg u e a t tri al th at “a safetyb eltw o u ld h av e p rev en ted [ M r. M inter] f ro m fa lli n g o u t o f

th e lift h a d h e b e e n w e a rin g it, ” A p p e llan t’s A p p . 4 9 5 , an d to i nt r oduce the por t i ons of M r . M i nt er ’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyw her e he a dm i t t ed t hata har d hat“mi ghthave s aved [ hi s ] head f r om hur t i ng. ” A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 29. O n appea l , t he pl ai nt i ff c ont ends t hatt he s afe tybel tand har d hat evi dence w as r el evantonl yt o a compar at i ve negl i gence defe ns e, and s i nce he v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss e d h is n e g lig e n c e c laim s a g a in st P rim e E q u ip m e n t b e fo re trial, t he evi dence s houl d have be en exc l uded. Pr i m e Equi pm entdefe nds t he admi s s i on of the s afe t ybel tand har d hatevi dence on the gr ound thati tw as r el evantt o the iss u e s o f

c a u sa tio n a n d m iti g a tio n o f d a m a g e s, a n d w a s th e re fo re p ro p e rly a d m itte d a t tr ia l.- 41-

W e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g o n th e n a rro w g ro u n d th a t th e sa fe ty bel tand har d hatevi dence w as r el evantt o the s peci fi c ca us at i on i s s ues r ai s ed by M r . M i nt er ’ s fai l ur e t o w arn cl ai m . O kl ahoma l aw r equi r es the pl ai nt i ff, i n a fai l ur e t o w arn l aw s ui t , t o “es t abl i s h thatthe fa i l ur e t o w arn w as a pr oxi m at e, pr oduci ng caus e of the i nj ur i es r ece i ved. ” D uane v. O kla. G as & El ec. C o. , 833 P . 2 d 2 8 4 , 2 8 6 ( Ok l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . M r . M i n t e rth e r e fo r e h a d t o s h o w t h a ti f P r i me E q u ip m e n t h a d p o s te d a n a d e q u a te w a rn in g o n th e lif t, h e w o u ld h a v e h e e d e d it. See, e. g. , D ani elv. B en E. Kei th C o. , 9 7 F .3 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A lth o u g h th e re is a p re su m p tio n u n d e r O k lah o m a law th a t th e p lain tiff w o u ld have r ead a nd heede d an ade quat e w arni ng, the defendantm ayr ebutthat p resu m p ti o n b ysh o w ing that the w arn ing w o u ld n o t hav e a lt ere d the p lai n ti ff ’s b e h a v io r. Id . at1332. Pr i m e Equi pm entar gues thatM r . M i nt er ’ s fai l ur e t o w ear a sa fe tyb e lt o r h a rd h a t o n th e d a yo f th e a c c id e n t d e m o n stra tes h is “ p ro p e n sity forr eckl es s nes s . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . 35. W hi l e Pr i m e Equi pm entm aybe over s t at i ng i t s cas e, w e fi nd thatt he s afe t ybel tand har d hatevi dence bear s s uffi ci entr el at i on t o t he ques t i on of w hetherM r . M i nt erw oul d have he eded a n adequa t e w arni ng t hatPr i m e Equi pm entw as ent i t l ed t o pr es entthe s afe tybel tand har d hatevi dence to th e ju ry. Cf

. D ani el , 97 F. 3d at1333. I I I . CO NC L US I ON T h e o rde r of

the d istri ct co u rtstr iking fro m the p retri al ord er M r. M inter’s pr oductl i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tPr i m e Equi pm ents t emm i ng fr om t he al t er at i on of- 42-

t he s ci s s orl i fti s t her efor e REVERSED , and t he case is RE M ANDE D t o the d istri ct co u rtfo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. T h e e v iden ti aryruli n g s o f th e d istri ct co u rt re late d to th e fa ilu re to w a rn c laim a re u p h e ld , an d th e ju ryv e rd ict o n th a t cla im i s AFF I RM ED .