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 10-22-2009 

# Thom a s Altm an v

. B ob c at C o 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 . 08-3161

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
" Thom as Altm an v

. Bo bcat C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 397. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/397NOT 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- 3161

_____________ T H O M A S A L T M A N ; R O X A N A A L T M A N , hus band and w i fe
v. B O B C A T C O M P A N Y , an u nincorporat ed b usi ness U n it o f C L A R K E Q U IP M E N T C O M P A N Y , L E P P O IN C .; LEPPO EQ U I PM EN T; LEPPO RE N TS; L E P P O R E NT S - BO BC AT OF AKR ON B ob catC om pan y , an u nincorporat ed b usi ness u n it o f C la rk E q u ip m e n t C o m p a n y , A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A ppeal fr om t he J udgm entE nt er ed A pr i l 8, 2008 bythe U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o . 05- 00956) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a)

on Sept ember9, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, and R E N D E L L A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober22, 2009)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________B obcatC om panyi s an uni ncorpor at ed bus i nes s uni tof C l ark E qui pm ent 1 C o m p a n y. T 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. T hi s C our thas 2 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndantB obcatC om pany appea l s fr om a j udgm entent er ed bythe D i s t r i ct 1 C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia o n a ju ryv e rd ict f in d in g B o b c a t f

u lly l i abl e fori nj ur i es s us t ai ned byT hom as A l t m an i n an ac ci denti nvol vi ng a B obcatM odel 709 backhoe at t achment . Fol l ow i ng a s even- daytr i al , the j uryfound B obcat ’ s negl i gence to b e th e so le c a u se o f

A ltm a n ’s in

ju rie s a n d a w a rd e d $ 2 ,9 9 1 ,3 3 7 .0 0 in d a m a g e s to P lai n ti ff s T h o m as a n d R o x an a A ltm an . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied B o b ca t’ s m o ti o n fo r a n e w tr ia l, a n d th is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . B o b c a t u rg e s th is C o u rt to re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w a n d o rd e r a n e w trial,
co n tend ing that: ( 1 ) th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld h av e o rde red a m istri al be ca u se Ju ror 7 3 ’s t r i al m i s conducts ubs t ant i al l ypr ej udi ced Bobcat ; ( 2) the C our tcomm i t t ed pr ej udi ci al
err orw hen i tperm i t t ed the j ur yt o vi ew a comput erani m at i on depi ct i ng the M odel 709 backhoe at t achmentand fe as i bl e al t ernat i ve des i gns ; and ( 3) the C our tcomm i t t ed prej ud i ci al err or w hen i tperm i t t ed the A l t m ans t o cross- exam i ne a k eyB ob catw i t ness us i ng an “unr el at ed” c as e fr om t he W as hi ngt on C our tof A ppeal s . W e have cons i der ed
e a c h o f th e se c o n ten tio n s a n d w ill a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 2 I.3

B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts a n d p ro c e e d in g s in th e D istric t C o u rt,
w e w ill r e c ite th e m o n ly as n e c e s s a ry to th e d is c u s s io n . T ho m as A l t m an, a haza rd r espon der for Fir stE nergy , w as w orki ng w i t h a F i rs t E ner gycr ew t o l ocat e and r epai rdamaged under gr ound el ectr i cal w i r es . A l t m an’ s cow or ker , G r egoryM us car el l a, w as oper at i ng a B obcatM odel 863G s ki d- s t eerl oaderw i th a B obcatM odel 709 backhoe at t achment . W hi l e A l tm an w as s t andi ng i n t he s w i ng zone of t he bac khoe att achment , M us car el l a i nadvert ent l yact i vat ed the bac khoe’ s contr ol l ever w ith h is k n e e . T h e b a c k h o e ’s b u c k e t ro tate d 1 8 0 d e g re e s to th e rig h t an d stru c k A ltm a n in t he hea d, caus i ng i r r ever s i bl e br ai n damage. M r . a n d M r s . A l t m a n s u e d B o b c a ta n d w e n tt o tr i a l o n tw o th e o r i e s o f l i a b i l i t y – negl i gentdes i gn and negl i gentfai l ur e t o w arn. Speci fi cal l y , the A l t m ans al l eged that B obcatnegl i gent l ydes i gned the bac khoe’ s oper at orcompar t m entbypl aci ng an unguar ded oper at i onal contr ol l everatknee he i ghtand i n s uch cl os e quart er s thati nadvert ent ac ti v ati o n w as in ev it ab le. T h e A ltm an s also all eg ed that B o b ca t neg li g en tl yfa il ed to w arn oper at or s t hatt he bac khoe’ s bucketand s w i ng arm coul d pi voteven a ft erthe oper at or release d the h an d co n tr o ls t o stop o p era ti o n . O n A p ri l 7, 20 0 8 , the ju ryfo u n d B o b ca t’ s negl i gence t o be the s ol e ca us e of the A l t m ans ’ i nj ur i es and r eturned a $2, 991, 337. 00 ver di cti n t hei rfavor . Fi nal j udgm entw as ent er ed on A pr i l 8, 2008. O n A pr i l 21, 2008, B o b c a t f iled a m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial, w h ich w a s d e n ied o n Ju ly1 4 , 2 0 0 8 . B o b c a t ti m e ly appea l ed on J ul y18, 2008.4 II. B obcatcont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have de cl ar ed a mi s t r i al aft er l earni ng t hatJ ur or73 conduct ed i ndepende ntr es ear ch dur i ng the tr i al bys i t t i ng i n t he ca b of w hats he bel i eved t o be a Bobcatm achi ne. D ur i ng del i ber at i ons , J ur or73 des cr i bed her exper i ence t o ot herj ur or s and r epor t ed thatthe B obcat ’ s oper at orcompar t m entw as “t i ght . ” A l m os ti m m edi at el y , t he j ur yfor eper s on not i fi ed C hi ef J udge A m br os e, w ho di s m i s s ed J ur or73 and conduc t ed voi rdi r e of the r emai ni ng j ur or s . A ft erques t i oni ng eac h j ur ori ndi vi dual l y , t he J udge “di d notfi nd anyof the r emai ni ng j ur or s t o be bi as ed, p re ju d ic e d o r u n a b le to re n d e r a n im p a rt ia l v e rd ic t b a s e d o n th e s ta te m e n ts o f J u ro r 7 3 .” ( A pp. 37. ) B obcatdi s agr ees , and cont ends thatw e s houl d or dera new tr i al beca us e J ur or 7 3 ’s s ta te m e n ts “ s u b s ta n tia lly p re ju d ic e d B o b c a t.” (A p p . 2 0 .) “[E] veryl i t i gantw ho i s ent i t l ed t o t r i al byj uryi s ent i t l ed t o an i m par t i al j ury , fr ee to th e f u rth e st e x ten t p ra c tica b le f ro m e x tra n e o u s in f

lu e n c e s th a t m a ysu b v e rt th e f a c tf in d in g p ro c e ss .” W a ld o rf v . S h u ta, 3 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 0 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). W h e n ju ro rs o b tain extr i ns i c i nform at i on dur i ng j ur ydel i ber at i ons , a new tr i al i s w arr ant ed i f the obj ect i ng par t y“l i kel ys uffe r ed s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the j ury ’ s expos ur e t o t he extr aneous i nform at i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. L l oy d, 269 F. 3d 228, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) . N evert hel es s , a new tr i al i s notr equi r ed i f the j urycan r emai n i m par t i al and unpr ej udi ced a nd can c onfi ne i t s del i ber at i ons t o t he r ecor d evi dence . W al dor f, 3 F. 3d at709. T hus , w hen “the tr i al cour tl earns that[the j ury ] m ayhave r ece i ved5

extr a- r ecor d i nform at i on w i t h a pot ent i al fors ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce, [i t ] m us tdet erm i ne w hethert he mem ber s of the j ur yhave be en pr ej udi ced. ” G ov’ tof V . I . v. D ow l i ng, 814 F . 2 d 1 3 4 , 1 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). W e h av e lon g ex p resse d a p ref ere n ce fo r i n d ividu al vo ird ir e ques t i oni ng of ea ch pot ent i al l yt ai nt ed j ur or . I d. at137. W e a c c o rd “ g re a t d e f

e re n c e to th e trial ju d g e ’s w id e d isc re tio n in u sin g v o ir d ire to det erm i ne the pr es ence orabs ence of pr ej udi ce. ” I d. C ons equent l y , w e empl oyan abus eo f -d isc re tio n sta n d a rd to re v iew b o th th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n d u c t o f v o ir d ire a n d its det erm i nat i on t hatt he j ur or s had notbeen pr ej udi ced. W al dor f, 3 F. 3d at710. U nderour d e f e re n tial re v iew , a d istric t co u rt n e e d n o t p u rsu e a n ysp e c if ic lin e o f q u e stio n in g o n v o ir di r e. I ndeed, “anym ethod i s s uffi ci entpr ovi ded i ti s pr obat i ve on the i s s ue of i m par t i al i t y . ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d pl ace s a hea vybur den on B o b c a t, w h ich m u st d e m o n stra te th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its b ro a d d isc re tio n in d e ter m in in g th a t th e ju ro rs w o u ld re m a in im p a rtial. W e a re sa tisf

ied th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in c o n d u c tin g v o ir d ire o r c o n c lu d in g th a t Ju ro r 7 3 ’s m isc o n d u c t w o u ld n o t p re ju d ice th e p ro c e e d in g s. A f ter it l earned of the mi s conduct , t he C our ti m m edi at el ydi s m i s s ed J ur or73 ( A pp. 366- 368) and conduct ed voi rdi r e of the r emai ni ng j ur or s ( A pp. 368- 385) . C ons i s t entw i t h W al dor f, t he C o u rt ’s q u e s tio n s e lic ite d te s tim o n yp ro b a tiv e o f th e ju ro rs ’ i m p a rt ia lity. S e e W a ld o rf , 3 F. 3d at710. T he j ur or s eac h t es t i fi ed thatJ ur or73’ s s t at ement s w oul d nei t herchange nor i nfl uence t hei ropi ni ons and thatt heycoul d di s r egar d compl et el yJ ur or73’ s i m pr operT he ques t i on pos ed t o J ur or8 w as typi cal : “D o y ou fee l thatanyt hi ng that[J ur or 3 73] s ai d w oul d i n anyw ayaff ecty ourabi l i t yt o r endera fa i rver di cti n t hi s cas e?” J ur or 8 ’s r e sp o n se w a s a lso typ ica l: “N o I d o n ’t.” (A p p . 3 7 5 .) O u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t C h ief

Ju d g e A m b ro se p o se d th is q u e stio n , o r a su b sta n tiv e lyid e n tica l q u e stio n , to ea ch juro r. (A p p . 3 6 8 , 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 , 3 7 8 , 3 8 0 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 4 -38 5 . ) E ac h juro r assu red the C o u rt t hathe ors he coul d di s r egar d J ur or73’ s s t at ement s and coul d r endera fa i r , i m par t i al v e rd ic t. 6 s t at ement s . M or eover , i n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s br oad di s cr et i on t o conductvoi rdi r e us i ng

3 “anym ethod” ai m ed atdi s cover i ng pr ej udi ce, w e have no cr i t i ci s m of the C our t ’ s deci s i on to p e rm it co u n se l to p ro b e th e p re ju d ice iss u e w ith th e ir o w n q u e stio n s. S e e id . O n th is
re c o rd , w e d e ter m in e th a t th e C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in e ith e r its c o n d u c t o f v o ir di r e ori t s concl us i on t hatt he j ur or s had notbeen pr ej udi ced. C ont r aryt o B obcat ’ s cont ent i on, the C our t ’ s voi rdi r e of the j uryfor eper s on ( J ur or 6 ) d id n o t su g g e st th a t o n e o r m o re ju ro rs f e a re d th a t Ju ro r 7 3 ’s c o m m e n ts w o u ld
u n d e rm in e th e ir im p a rtiality . B o b c a t re a d s C h ief Ju d g e A m b ro se ’s c o llo q u yw ith Ju ro r 6 to su g g est th at on e juro r subjecti v elyb eli ev ed that sh e h ad b ee n p rejud iced b yJu ror 7 3 ’s st at em ents : JU R O R N O . 6 : Itw as righ t atthat o n e p o int [d u ri n g Ju ror 7 3 ’s

expl anat i on of J ur or73’ s encount erw i t h a B obcat m achi ne] w her e one of

the otherj ur or s s ai d s he fe l tthat w as in ap p rop ri ate, give n the b o u n d aries tha t w e w ere gi ven, and nott o di s cus s anyof the part i cul ar s of the cas e, and f

el tthatthis w as s om ethi ng thatm ighthave sw ayedher op i nion on e w ay o r ano ther and as ked for m e to b ri n g it f

o rw a rd to th e J u d g e . ( A pp. 368 ( emphasi s added) . ) A bs entthe bene fi tof s ubs equentcl ar i fi cat i on, w e mi ght7

ag ree . U n fo rtu n atelyfo r B o b ca t, Ju ror 6 im m ed iat elyclarified th at no m em b er o f th e jury panel i ndi cat ed t o J ur or6 t hatJ ur or73’ s s t at ement s w oul d s w ayhi s orheropi ni on. ( A pp. 369- 370. ) W e omi tt he r el evantexce rpt s , butw e have r evi ew ed the tr ans cr i ptand uncove r n o e v id e n c e o f

su b jec tiv e p re

ju d ice . (A p p . 3 6 8 -3 7 2 .) W e o b se rv e a lso th a t n o ju ro r’s v o ir di r e s t at ementcorr obor at es B obcat ’ s s ubj ect i ve pr ej udi ce theory , confi r m i ng ourvi ew t hat th is th e o ry la c k s m e ri t. W e a re u n p e rsu a d e d b yB o b c a t’s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts a n d d ism iss th e m w ith little el abor at i on. B obcatur ges t hatw e s houl d pr es um e pr ej udi ce i n cas es i nvol vi ng j ur or exper i m ent s . W e di s agr ee, and not e thatthi s C our thas decl i ned t o adopts uch a p re s u m p tio n in c a s e s lik e th is , w h e re c ir c u m s ta n c e s a re n o t “ s u f f ic ie n tly a g g ra v a te d .” W a ld o rf , 3 F .3 d a t 7 1 1 n .6 . B obcataddi t i onal l ycont ends t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have de t erm i ned that J ur or73’ s s t at ement s w er e s o fundament al l ypr ej udi ci al thatthe j ur or s coul d not , as an obj ect i ve mat t er , di s r egar d t hem. W e di s agr ee. W e have hel d t hat“abs en[t ] . . . an ex am ination d esig n ed to elici t ans w ers w h ich p rov ide a n o b jecti v e b asis fo r th e c o u rt ’s evaluat i on , m erel y. . . ob t ai ning [j urors ’] assur ances o f i m part i al i t yi s i nsuff i ci ent t o tes t that im p arti ali ty . ” Id . at 71 2 (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted). C o n tr aryto B o b ca t’ s cont ent i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr ej udi ce i nqui r ydi d notr el yon t he j ur or s ’ bar e and
su b jecti v e a ssu ran ce s o f th eir ow n im p arti ali ty . T h e jud g e a sk ed ea ch juro r w h at sh e h ea rd J ur or73 s ay , w hetheranyot herj ur orw as expos ed t o t he extr aneous i nform at i on andT w o addi t i onal ci r cumst ance s as s ur e us thatthe C our thad obj ect i ve i ndi ci a that 4 th e ju ryw o u ld re m a in im p a rtial. F irst, th e ju ryh a d a lre a d yd e m o n stra ted its a b ili tyto f o llo w th e C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s b yre p o rtin g Ju ro r 7 3 ’s m isc o n d u c t alm o st im m e d iate ly ( A pp. 369) . O bj ect i vel ys peaki ng, t he j ury ’ s obedi ence gave the C our tr eas on t o bel i eve t he j ur yw oul d fol l ow i ns truct i ons t o deci de the ca s e onl yon t he evi dence adduce d at t r i al . Second, t he C our tw as doubt l es s aw ar e thatJ ur or73’ s s t at ementthatthe compar t m entw as “t i ght ” w as cumul at i ve of otheruncont es t ed evi dence . N otw i t hs t andi ng B obcat ’ s ar gum entt o t he contr ary , no w i t nes s t es t i fi ed thatthe oper at or ’ s compar t m ent w a s a n yth in g b u t “tig h t.” T h e u n c o n tes ted n a tu re o f th is e v id e n c e o b

jec tiv e lysu g g e sts t h a tJ u r o r7 3 ’ s s t a t e m e n t s w o u l d n o t , a n d c o u l d n o t , p r e j u d i c e th e j u r y. 8 w h e th e r e a c h ju ro r s u b

je c tiv e ly b e lie v e d s h e c o u ld d is re g a rd th e re m a rk s . (A p p . 3 4 6 -3 8 3 .) T he j udge l i s t ened t o t he j ur or s ’ r es pons es , obs erved thei rdemeanor s and det erm i ned that
e a c h w o u ld re m a in im p a rtial. W e b e liev e th e C o u rt’s q u e stio n s a f f o rd e d a n o b

jec tiv e b a sis fori t s eval uat i on of pr ej udi ce a nd r ecogni ze thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as i n a s uper i or pos i t i on t o as s es s t he pr ej udi ci al eff ect s of J ur or73’ s m i s conduct . W e det erm i ne thatC hi ef 4 J udge A m br os e ac t ed w el l w i t hi n herdi s cr et i on, and w e w i l l defe rt o herconcl us i on that th e ju ry h a d n o t b e e n p re ju d ic e d . III . B obcatnextchal l enges t he C our t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow the j uryt o vi ew a comput er a n im a tio n d e p ictin g th e B o b c a t an d b a c k h o e a ttac h m e n t an d a ltern a tiv e d e sig n s. A t trial, t he A l t m ans ’ expertC hr i s t opherFer r one us ed a c om put er - ani m at ed bac khoe oper at orand M odel 709 t o expl ai n w hyhe bel i eved M odel 709’ s des i gn cr eat ed a r i s k of i nadvert ent act i vat i on. T he ani m at i on s uper i m pos ed hypothet i cal des i gn m odi fi cat i ons overM odel 7 0 9 ’s e x is tin g d e s ig n to s u g g e s t h o w th a t r is k m ig h t b e e lim in a te d .9

T he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed B obcat ’ s obj ect i ons attr i al , w hi ch al l eged thatthe ani m at i on w as undul ypr ej udi ci al , m i s l eadi ng, i r r el evant , l acke d foundat i on, and amount ed t o an i m pr operacc i dentr econs t ruct i on. I n t hi s appea l , B obcatcont ends thatthe evi dence
w as “unfa i r l ypr ej udi ci al ” underR ul e 403 and s houl d nothave be en admi t t ed w i t hout foundat i onal evi dence t hatt he “s i m ul at i on w as s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o t he fa ct s of the
cas e. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 36. ) B eca us e evi dent i aryrul i ngs ar e comm i t t ed t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcour t , w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. W e w i l l r ever s e a tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o admi torexcl ude evi dence underR ul e 403 onl yi f i tw as “arbi t r aryand irra tio n a l.” M c K e n n a v . C ityo f P h ila., 2 0 0 9 U .S . A p p . L E X IS 2 1 6 8 7 , at * 2 8 (3 d C ir. O c t. 2, 2009) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hatdemonstr abl yw as notthe ca s e her e. A d istric t co u rt h a s d isc re tio n to e x c lu d e re lev a n t ev id e n c e if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is
s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof “unf ai rpr ej udi ce” or“mi s l eadi ng the j ury . ” See Ru l e 4 0 3 , F e d e r a l Ru l e s o f E v i d e n c e . I n a p p l y i n g Ru l e 4 0 3 t o v i s u a l d e mo n s t r a t i o n s , we h av e d eterm ined that d ep ict ion s tha t app ea r t o “re cre ate” an ac cide n t are sign ifi ca n tl ym o re l i kel yt o confus e the j ur yt han depi ct i ons w hi ch mer el y“i l l us t r at e pr i nci pl es form i ng an expert ’ s opi ni on. ” H i nkl e v. C i t yof C l arks bur g, 81 F. 3d 416, 425 ( 4th C i r . 1996) ; H arki ns v. F o rd M o to r C o ., 4 3 7 F .2 d 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 0 ). T h u s, f o r d e m o n stra tiv e e v id e n c e c lo se ly
r es embl i ng t he ac tual acc i dent , cour t s gener al l yr equi r e the pr oponentt o es t abl i s h t hatt he d e m o n s t r a t i o n s h a r e s s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y w i t h a c c i d e n tc o n d i t i o n s . E . g . , M c K n i g h tB y & Th r o u g h Lu d wi g v . J o h n s o n Co n t r o l s , 3 6 F . 3 d 1 3 9 6 , 1 4 0 2 , 1 4 0 3 ( 8 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . ByT he C our t ’ s R ul e 403 ana l y s i s w as i m pl i ci ti n t he tr i al col l oquy . See For r es tv. 5 B eloit C o rp., 4 2 4 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 10 contr as t , i f a de m ons t r at i on does notappea rt o r ecr eat e the ac ci dent , R ul e 403 gene r al l ydoes notr equi r e a f

oundat i onal s how i ng of s i m i l ar i t yw i t h acc i dentcondi t i ons . G i l ber tv. C os co, I nc. , 989 F. 2d 399, 402 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ; C hampeau v. Fruehauf C orp. , 814 F. 2d 1271, 1278 (8 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ); c f. H a rk in s ,4 3 7 F .2 d a t 2 7 8 . T he t es ti s “notone of l abel s , ” but“w hethert he demonstr at i on i s s uffi ci ent l ycl os e i n appea r ance t o t he or i gi nal acc i dentt o cr eat e the r i s k of
m isu n d e rsta n d in g b yth e ju ry , fo r it is th a t risk th a t g iv e s ris e to th e sp e c ial re q u ire m e n t to sh o w sim il ar c o n d it ion s. ” F u sco v . G en . M o tors C o rp., 1 1 F . 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 4 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, and w e ca nnotdi s agr ee, thatthe A l t m ans ’ comput er a n i m a t i o n w a s a d m i s s i b l e u n d e rR u l e 4 0 3 w i t h o u ta f o u n d a t i o n a l s h o w i n g o f s i m i l a r i t y. 5 T h e C o u rt c a re f

u llyc o n sid e re d B o b c a t’s o b jec tio n (A p p . 2 2 6 ), d e ter m in e d th a t u n f a ir p rejud ice o r co n fu sion co u ld b e m it igated b ycro ss-ex am ination an d li m it ing jury i ns t ruct i ons ( A pp. 228) , and conc l uded that“the j uryunder s t ands i ti s notan ac ci dent
r econs t ruct i on” ( A pp. 228- 229) . W e agr ee. T he A l t m ans ’ depi ct i on – a s er i es of s ket ches interspe rsed w ith b ri ef

an im ati o n s – is no t atall li fe li k e. Itclea rl yil lustrat es F erro n e’s te s tim o n ya n d d o e s n o t a p p e a r e v e n re m o te ly to b e a re c re a tio n o f th e a c c id e n t. ( A p p . 5 5 1 .) T o r emove al l doubt , t he C our ti ns t ruct ed the j urythatthe ani m at i on w as nota r ecr eat i on a n d h ig h lig h ted d if

f e re n c e s b e tw e e n th e a n im a tio n a n d th e f a c ts a s a d d u c e d a t trial. ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . 53. ) A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d and the evi dence i t s el f, w e det erm i ne that11

th e d e p ictio n e v id e n c e w a s n o t “s u f f icie n tlyc lo se in a p p e a ra n c e to th e o rig in a l ac c id e n t to cr eat e the r i s k of m i s under s t andi ng bythe j ury ” orpr ej udi ce t o B obcat . Fusc o, 11 F. 3d at 2 6 4 . W e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in p e rm itt in g th e ju ryto vi ew t hi s evi dence . I V. B ob catnex tcharges t hat the C ou rterr ed in perm i t t i ng the A l t m ans’ att orneyt o crossexami ne i t s s ol e corpor at e w i t nes s , Pr oductSafetyM anage rT hom as I hr i nger , us i ng an “unr el at ed” W as hi ngt on s t at e ca s e, G amm on v. C l ark E qui pm entC o. , 686 P. 2d 1102 ( W as h. C t . A pp. 1984) . T o s uppor ti t s ar gum entthatM odel 709 w as s afe , B obcatpr es ent ed Ih rin g e r’s tes tim o n yth a t B o b c a t h a d n e v e r re c e iv e d a re p o rt o f a n a c c id e n t sim ilar to A l t m an’ s . ( A pp. 260, 293. ) O n cr os s - exami nat i on, the A l t m ans ques t i oned I hr i ngerabout G a m m o n , a c a se in w h ich C lar k (B o b c a t’s p a re n t) v io late d d isc o v e ryru les a n d re p e a ted ly
r efus ed “t o tur n over. . . acc i dentr epor t s . ” G amm on, 686 P. 2d at1105. A ft ers even ques t i ons on G amm on, B obcatobj ect ed thatthe G amm on l i ne of que s t i oni ng w as “col l at er al ” bec aus e i tr el at ed t o a di s coveryi s s ue that“has nothi ng t o do w i t h [the A l t m an] cas e. ” ( A pp. 302. ) T he C our toverrul ed B obcat ’ s obj ect i on, agr eei ng w i t h t he A l t m ans t hat t he ques t i oni ng w as “al l aboutcr edi bi l i t y . ” ( A pp. 302. ) I n s ubs equentques t i oni ng the A l t m ans ’ at t or neyel i ci t ed t es t i m ony , overB obcat ’ s gener al obj ect i on, thatC l ark had bee n s anct i oned i n G amm on fordi s coveryvi ol at i ons . T he nextday , aft erthe cl os e of e vi dence , B obcatm oved fora mi s t r i al , al l egi ng forthe fi r s tt i m e thatthe G amm on ques t i ons vi ol at edA s P ro f e s s o r W ig m o re h a s e x p la in e d , 6 T h e m o d ern theo ryo f re leva n cyh as b ee n d u b b ed log ical rel ev an cy . T h is th eo ry cont ai ns a numberof t enet s , one bei ng the cl ai m thatevi dence havi ng any pr obat i ve val ue, how evers l i ght , i s r el evantand ther efor e admi s s i bl e i n t he abs ence of a s peci fi c exc l us i onaryrul e ora s peci fi c r eas on, s uch as undue pr ej udi ce, w arr ant i ng i t s excl us i on. . . . T hi s expans i ve under s t andi ng of w hati ti s thatm akes evi dence “r el evant ” makes i tqui t e di ffi cul tt o as s ertw i t h anyconfi dence thatany evi dence i s i r r el evantt o anythi ng, and cl os e ana l y s i s i n a moder n vei n of dec i s i ons th a t p u rp o rt to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e f o r its irre lev a n c yu su a llyse rv e s to d e m o n stra te t hatt he s uppos edl yi r r el evantevi dence w as i n fac texcl uded ( ors houl d have be en) forr eas ons qui t e apa r tfr om i r r el evanc e, s uch as undue pr ej udi ce orundue cons um pt i on of t i m e. 1 W ig m o re , E v id e n c e § 9 . 12 R ul es 403 and 608. I n t hi s appea l , B obcatr enew s i t s obj ect i ons bas ed on r el evanc e and R u le s 4 0 3 a n d 6 0 8 . W e a d m it d o u b ts a b o u t th e p ro p rie tyo f th e G a m m o n q u e stio n s a n d a re n o t ab so lu tely
ce rt ain th eylog icall yu n d erm ined eith er Ih ri n g er’s cre d ibil ityo r th e integ ri tyo f B o b ca t’ s a c c id e n t re p o rtin g sy ste m . E v e n so , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d is c re tio n in o v e rr u lin g B o b c a t’ s re le v a n c yo b je c tio n to th is lin e o f

q u e s tio n in g . R el evanc e i s a conc eptexpans i vel ycons t rued, and w e do notcons i derthe G amm on ques t i ons t o be compl et el yi r r el evantt o t he A l t m ans ’ cl ai m s . I ti s anotherm at t erent i r el ythatG amm on m ay 6 hav e been al l eged l yrel evan ton l yfor i m proper pu rposes. W e f u rth e r d e ter m in e , u n d e r a c lea r-e rro r sta n d a rd , tha t th e C o u rt d id n o t er r in
overrul i ng B obcat ’ s obj ect i on t o t he “s anct i ons ” ques t i on ori t s bel at ed obj ect i ons under R ul es 403 and 608. See R ul e 103( a) ( 1) ( author i zi ng onl ycl ear - err orr evi ew forgener al13

obj ect i ons unl es s s peci fi c gr ound appar entfr om cont ext ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sandi ni , 803 F. 2d 123, 126- 127 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( det erm i ni ng thatt i m el yr el evanc yobj ect i on di d notpr es erve forappel l at e r evi ew unt i m el yobj ect i ons underR ul es 403 and 404( b) ) . I n ourtr adi t i on, t he in iti a tiv e in e x c lu d in g im p ro p e r e v id e n c e is le f t en tirelyto th e o p p o n e n t, w h o m u st o b jec t to di s put ed evi dence i n a s peci fi c, t i m el ym anner . T hi s r equi r ementi s nota tr ap forthe
unw ary , buti s des i gned t o al er tt he tr i al cour tt o evi dent i arydefe ct s s o t hatthe courtand
couns el m ayi m m edi at el yr emedyt hos e def ect s . C f. E s t el l e v. W i l l i ams, 425 U . S. 501, 509
n .3 (1 9 7 6 ). A n o b

je c tio n m u s t, th e re f

o re , “ s u p p l[ y ] t h e C o u rt w ith s u f f ic ie n t in f o rm a tio n . . . [ to ] d e te rm in e th e g ro u n d o f th e o b je c tio n a n d . . . m a k e a n in f o rm e d a n d in te llig e n t ru lin g .” 1 W i gm or e, E vi dence § 18. C ons equent l y , w e exa m i ne the C our t ’ s rul i ngs i n l i ghtof the
o b jec tio n s, a rg u m e n ts a n d e v id e n c e p ro f f e re d b yB o b c a t at tria l. U n d e r th e se p rin c ip les , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t itw a s c lea r e rro r f o r th e C o u rt to o v e rru le B obcat ’ s “s anct i ons ” obj ect i on ori t s bel at ed R ul e 403 and 608 obj ect i ons . O urr evi ew of the
re c o rd su g g e sts th a t th e C o u rt re a so n a b lyu n d e rsto o d Ih rin g e r’s tes tim o n ya s e sta b lish in g h is
ow n par t i ci pat i on and mal fea s ance i n B obcat ’ s pr i orl i t i gat i on m i s conduct . ( A pp. 284, 285, 286, 300, 301. ) E ar l i ert es t i m onyes t abl i s hed thatdur i ng the G amm on l i t i gat i on, I hr i nger w as t he C l ark empl oy ee r es pons i bl e forfurni s hi ng acc i dentr epor t s forl i t i gat i on atthe
r eques tof C l ark’ s couns el . ( A pp. 283- 284. ) I hr i ngeral s o t es t i fi ed thathe att ended the G a m m o n trial a n d h a d a ss iste d in p re trial d isc o v e ry . W h e n a sk e d a b o u t C lar k ’s c o n d u c t in t he G amm on cas e, I hr i ngerfr equent l yr es ponded i n t erm s of w hat“w e” a nd “I ” di d. ( A pp.In lig h t o f th e e x tre m e lyd e f

e re n tial sta n d a rd f

o r re v iew in g a trial ju d g e ’s R u le 7 4 0 3 b a lan c in g d e c isio n s, w e d e ter m in e th a t th e C o u rt d id n o t co m m it cle a r e rro r in rej ect i ng B ob cat ’s belat ed R ule 403 o bject i on s. E ven w er e w e t o deci de thi s evi dent i aryi s s ue i n B obcat ’ s favor , w e conc l ude that th e a lleg e d e rro rs w o u ld b e h a rm les s. E rro r a ttribu tab le to a n e v id e n tiary ru lin g is “harm l es s ” onl yi f i ti s “hi ghl ypr obabl e thatthe err ordi d notaff ectthe out come of t he cas e. ” B ecke rv. A R C O C hem. C o. , 207 F. 3d 176, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) . B obcatl odged i t s bel at ed obj ect i ons onl yaft erthe A l t m ans ’ at t or ney had as ked, and r ece i ved ans w er s t o, s even G amm on- bas ed ques t i ons . T hi s t es t i m ony( 1) r evea l ed thatC l ark had fa i l ed t o pr oduce r ecor ds i n t he G amm on pr ocee di ng, ( 2) s ugges t ed thatI hr i ngerhad bee n i nvol ved i n t he di s coveryabus es , and ( 3) at t acke d 14 30 0-302 . ) B ased on t he tr i al C ou rt ’s un derst and i ng of the t est i m on y , the G am m on qu est i on s, i ncl udi ng t he “s anct i ons ” ques t i on, w er e pr operunderR ul e 608. S ign ifi ca n tl y , B o b ca t fo rew en t m u lt iple o p p o rtu n it ies t o co rrect th e C o u rt ’s under s t andi ng of the t es t i m ony , i f thatunder s t andi ng w as i ndeed e r r oneous . I n hercol l oquy w i t h B obcat ’ s couns el , C hi ef J udge A m br os e expl ai ned, “I thi nk w hat[s i c] M r . H art m an sa id h e ’s in tro d u c in g [ th e G a m m o n q u e stio n s] f o r c re d ib ili ty .” (A p p . 3 0 2 .) A t th a t p o in t, B o b c a t sh o u ld h a v e im m e d iate lya ss e rte d its R u le 6 0 8 o b jec tio n a n d sh o u ld h a v e so u g h t to cl ar i fyI hr i nger ’ s i nvol vementi n t he G amm on m at t er . I tdi d not . R e- di r ectw oul d have pr es ent ed anotheroppor tuni t yt o devel op thi s i nform at i on, butB obcatdecl i ned the
o p p o rt u n ity. I ndeed, B obcatpoi nt s us t o no pl ace i n t he r ecor d w her e i ti nform ed the tr i al
cour tof the fa ctual bas i s fori t s obj ect i on t o t he G amm on cr os s - exami nat i on. I n l i ghtof B obcat ’ s fai l ur e t o appr i s e the C our tof the bas i s of i t s obj ect i ons , w e det erm i ne thatthe C our tdi d notcomm i tcl earerr orw hen i toverrul ed B obcat ’ s obj ect i ons underR ul es 403 and 608. W e w i l l not , t her efor e, di s turb t he C our t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs w i t h r es pectt o t he 7I hr i nger ’ s “cr edi bi l i t y . ” ( A pp. 300- 302. ) B ythen, m os tof the “da m age” of w hi ch B obcat

compl ai ns , w as al r eadydone. T hatthe j uryhear d t hes e mat t er s w as notat t r i but abl e t o t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng , bu tt o B ob cat ’s fai l ure t o ti m el yobj ect . C hief J ud ge A m brose her s el f hi ghl i ght ed thi s i s s ue: “I don’ tknow w hatI w oul d have done i f the obj ect i on w o u ld h a v e b e e n m a d e a f ter th e f irst q u e stio n . I d o n ’t k n o w if I w o u ld h a v e th o u g h t it we n tt o c r e d i b i l i t yt h e n o rn o t , b u tt h a to p p o r tu n i t ywe n tb ya n d I d o n ’ tk n o w wh a tmy ruli n g w o u ld h av e b ee n . ” (A p p . 3 4 6 -34 7 . ) M oreove r, i n v i ew of the j ury ’s dem on strat ed ab i l i t yt o o beyj uryi nst ruct i on s, C hi ef J udge A m br os e’ s cur at i ve i ns t ruct i ons w er e more than s uffi ci entt o m i t i gat e any unfai rpr ej udi ce. ( A pp. 350- 351 ( “[T] her e’ s no evi dence thatM r . I hr i ngerand/ orthe defe ndantB obcatw i t hhel d anyevi dence of otheracc i dent s i nvol vi ng the machi nes at issue h ere . I w an t t o instruct y o u that the in cide n t th at M r. H artm an q u esti o n ed M r. Ih rin g e r a b o u t y e ste rd a yo c c u rre d m a n yy e a rs a g o , in a n o th e r sta te, a n d in a to tally u n re la te d in c id e n t.” ).) Fi nal l y , w e di s agr ee thatanyerr orw as harm ful t o t he ext entthati ti m pugned Ih ri n g e r’ s c re d ib ility a n d a lle g e d ly u n f a ir ly p re ju d ic e d B o b c a t’ s k e y“ d e s ig n d e f e n s e .” O urr evi ew of the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe evi dence adduce d i n t he s even- daytr i al overw hel m i ngl ys uppor t ed the A l t m ans ’ negl i gence cl ai m . T he G amm on ques t i ons co m p ri sed a v erysm all p o rt ion o f th is ev iden ce , o cc u p y ing o n lyfiv e p ag es o f Ih ri n g er’s six ty -p a g e trial te stim o n y , w h ich itse lf o c c u p ied a f

ra c tio n o f

o n e d a yin a se v e n -d a ytrial. M or eover , pr i ort o t he G amm on ques t i ons , the A l t m ans ’ cr os s - exami nat i on of I hr i nger had s ubs t ant i al l yunder cutB obcat ’ s “des i gn defe ns e” thatno pr evi ous acc i dent s had o cc u rred b yd em o n str ati n g that B o b ca t’ s ac cide n t- rep o rt ing sy stem d id n o t trac k “n ea rm i sses ” (i ncident s and ac ci den t s w hich di d n ot r esul ti n inj uri es) . In vi ew of these ci rcum st ances, w e determ i ne thatt he all eged err or w ou l d b e harm l ess. 15 G a m m o n q u e s tio n s . * * * * * W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons pr es ent ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u r t h e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r twi l l b e AF F I RMED .