2005 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 6-29-2005 

# S ell v . Inge rsoll R and 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 . 04-1965

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_2005

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 2005 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 " S e ll v . In g e r s o ll R and " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 947. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/947NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UNI T E D S T AT E S CO UR T OF AP P E AL F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 1965 SEAN SELL ; L Y N N S E L L , H / W, v. I NGE RS OL L - RA ND C OM P ANY,

A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 02957) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. B er l e M . Schi l l er A r gued J une 2, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J une 29, 2005) J ohn E . M cK eeve r , E s q. ( A r gued) M i chae l J . O ’ N ei l l , E s q. K r i s t i n M . B arr ett , E s q. D L A P iper R u d n ick G rayC ary 1650 M arketSt r eet 4900 O ne Li bert yPl ace Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el forA ppel l ant2

E r i k K . V ogel , E s q. ( A r gued) W apner , N ew m an, W i gr i zer& B r eche r 115 Sout h 21 St r eet

st Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el forA ppel l ees OP I NI ON C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge. I n th i s p r o d u c tl i a b i l i t ya c t i o n , De f e n d a n t - Ap p e l l a n tI n g e r s o l l - Ra n d a p p e a l s f r o m a fi nal or der ent ered byt he D i stri ctC ou rtden y i ng i t s post -tri al m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw orfora new t r i al . I nger s ol l - R and ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued s e v e ra l e rr o n e o u s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es onl y , w e do nots etoutthe fa ct s . Forthe fol l ow i ng r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f

f i r m. In g e rso ll-R a n d c h a llen g e s s e v e ra l o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s e v id e n tiary ru lin g s. F irst, i tcont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng i nt o evi dence t es t i m onyr egar di ng a pos t - acc i dentm odi fi cat i on t o t he dr i l l r i g. I nger s ol l - R and ar gues thats uch t es t i m ony s houl d have be en exc l uded pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of Evi dence 407 or403. Second, I nger s ol l - R and ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed Fed. R . E vi d. 702 and D auber tv. Mer r el lD ow P har m aceut i cal s , I nc. , 509 U . S. 579 ( 1993) , byal l ow i ng the pr oductdes i gn e x p e rt o f P lain tiff s-A p p e llee s S e a n a n d L yn n S e ll (co llec tiv e ly“ S e lls” ) to tes tifya b o u t a3

part i cul aral t ernat i ve des i gn. W e r evi ew the deni al of a r eques tfora new tr i al pr emi s ed on a dis tri ctcou rt ’s al l eged l yerr on eou s ruli ng s on the adm i ssi bil i t yof ev i den ce fo r abuse o f d is c re tio n . A

f f i l i at ed M f rs . , I nc. v. A l um i num C o. of

A m er i ca , 56 F. 3d 521, 525 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . I f the rul i ng as t o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence i nvol ves appl i cat i on of the F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e , it is s u b

je c t to a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w . I

d. a t5 2 6 . I f

t h e ru l i n g h i n g e s u p o n a n i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f a ru l e o f e v i d e n c e , h o we v e r , we a p p ly p le n a ry re v ie w . I d. I f the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on of admi s s i bi l i t yi s bas ed on a f a c tu a l f in d in g , w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h a t f in d in g w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Id . 1 . A dm is s i on of

P os t -A cci dent

Modi f i cat i on T he Sel l s ’ pr oductdes i gn expertopi ned thatI nger s ol l - R and s houl d have i ncl uded a met al br acke tovert he auxi l i arycut - out , t o be r emoved bythe oper at or ’ s as s i s t ant w heneve raddi t i onal r ods w er e r equi r ed t o be moved fr om the auxi l i arycar ous el t o t he m ai n car ous el . T hi s al t ernat i ve des i gn w as i n fac tthe pos t - acc i dentchange i ns t i tut ed by M r . Sel l ’ s empl oy er , w ho w as nota part yt o t he l aw s ui t . I n addi t i on t o perm i t t i ng the expert ’ s t es t i m onyas evi dence of an a l t ernat i ve des i gn, the D i s t r i ctC our tadmi t t ed e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e m e tal b ra c k e t’s a c tu a l u se o n th e o il rig. In g e rso ll-R a n d a ss e rts thats uch evi dence s houl d have be en exc l uded underFed. R . E vi d. 407 orFed. R . E vi d. 403. A s expl ai ned bel ow , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yadmi t t ed thi s evi dence . R ul e 4074

Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 407 pr ovi des , i n r el evantpart , thatevi dence of a r emedi al m eas ur e t aken a ft ert he occ urr ence of harm caus ed byan eve nt“i s not a d m iss ib le to p ro v e . . . a d e f e c t in a p ro d u c t, [o r] a d e f e c t in a p ro d u c t’s d e sig n .” R u le 407 has been c ons i s t ent l yappl i ed t o excl ude evi dence of s ubs equentr emedi al m eas ur es tak e n b yth e p a rtya g a in st w h o m th e p o st-a c c id e n t m o d if ica tio n is o f

f e re d . In g e rso llR and mai nt ai ns , how ever , t hatpur s uantt o t hi s R ul e, the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have ex clud ed ev iden ce relati n g to the su b seq u en t r em ed ial m ea su re tak en b yM r. S ell ’s e m p lo y e r, ev e n th o u g h h e is n o t a p a rtyto th e in sta n t su it. T h is a rg u m e n t is d ire c tly for ecl os ed byourdeci s i on i n D i ehl v. B l aw - Knox , 360 F. 3d 426 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w hi ch hel d that“R ul e 407 does notbarevi dence of r emedi al m eas ur es t aken bya non- par t y . ” I d. a t 4 2 8 ; s e e id . a t 4 3 0 . In g e rso ll-R a n d su g g e sts th a t D i ehl w a s w r o n g l yd e c i d e d . We a re n o t at lib e rty , h o w e v e r, to o v e rru le it. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in re f u sin g to a p p lyR u le 4 0 7 to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e o f a n o n -p a rty ’s p o st-a c c id e n t ad d iti o n to the oi l r i g. R ul e 403 In g e rso ll-R a n d a ltern a tiv e lya ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in n o t exc lud ing ev iden ce that M r. S ell ’s em p loy er install ed a m etal bra ck et ov er the d ri ll ’s auxi l i arycut - outfol l ow i ng M r . Sel l ’ s acc i dentunderR ul e 403. R ul e 403 s t at es that

“ [ a ]lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tially outw ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he5

j ur y . ” A di s t r i ctcourt ’ s R ul e 403 bal anci ng anal y s i s i s acc or ded s ubs t ant i al defe r ence , a n d s h o u ld n o t b e d is tu rb e d u n le s s ir ra tio n a l o r a rb itr a ry. A ns el lv. G r een Acr es C ontr act i ng C o. , I

nc. , 3 4 7 F .3 d 5 1 5 , 5 2 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In d e ter m in in g th a t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e m e tal b ra c k e t’s a c tu a l u se w a s n o t s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byanyunfai rpr ej udi ce, the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatthe met al bracket w as properl yadm i t t ed as on e of the al t ernat i ve d esi gn s proposed bythe S el l s’ expert . B eca us e I nger s ol l - R and contr over t ed thi s des i gn al t ernat i ve as unnece s s aryand as p o sing a g rav e sa fe tyco n ce rn, ev iden ce o f a ctua l use o f th e b rac k et byM r. S ell ’s e m p l o ye rw a s r e l e v a n tt o s h o w t h a ti th a d , i n f a c t , b e e n u s e d s a f

e l y. W e di s cern no r eas on t o di s turb t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. I nger s ol l - R and s tr es s es thatt he Sel l s ’ cas e hi ghl i ght ed the abs ence of anyacc i dent s i n t he tw o y ear s t hat h a d p a ss e d sin c e th e m e tal b ra c k e t w a s in sta lled o n th e d rill. A lth o u g h n o t ex tra o rd in a rily p ro b a tiv e o n th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e d rill w a s d e f e c tiv e a s d e sig n e d , tha t n o a c c id e n ts o c c u rr e d i n t h e r e l a t i v e l ys h o r tt i me s i n c e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f th e me t a l b r a c k e td o e s h a v e s o me p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . In a d d iti o n to its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a s a n a ltern a tiv e f e a sib le d e sig n , this C our tand the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thave r ecogni zed thatan i nfer ence of pr oduct defe ct i venes s m ayappr opr i at el ybe dr aw n fr om the adopt i on of a s ubs equentr emedi al m e a s u re e m p lo y e d to im p ro v e a p ro d u c t’ s s a f e ty. See Petr ee v . V

i ctorF l ui d P ow er, I

nc. , 8 3 1 F .2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); D uches s v. Langston , 769 A . 2d 1131, 1142 ( Pa. 2 0 0 1 ). T h is o b s e rv a tio n is a p ro p o s h e re , a s s ta te o f th e a rt is n o t in is s u e . See D i ehl , 3606

F. 3d at432. Fur t her , as not ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , evi dence of the addi t i on of the br acke ts erved t o r efut e I nger s ol l - R and’ s evi dence thatthe br acke tcr eat ed a ne w and gr eat erdanger . I nger s ol l - R and cont ends , how ever , thatthe mul t i pl e r efe r ence s t o t he m et al br acke tm odi fi cat i on and the l ack of anyacc i dent s s i nce i t s i ncept i on cr eat ed pr ej udi ce i n t hati t“l i kel ycaus ed the j uryt o di s countI nger s ol l - R and’ s r eas ons w hythe br acke tcr eat ed gr eat erdanger . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18. ) T hi s ar gum entgoes t o t he w ei ghtof thi s evi dence , and noti t s admi s s i bi l i t y . T he j uryw as fr ee t o di s countthe w eigh t of

the m etal bra ck et’s use as e v iden ce o f it s saf etyin li g h t of

the re lat ivelysh o rt t i m e thati thad i n fac tbeen us ed. I nger s ol l - R and w as l i kew i s e fr ee t o w arn t he j uryt hat th e d a n g e rs c re a te d b yth e u s e o f th e m e ta l b ra c k e t w o u ld b e c o m e m o re e v id e n t o v e r t im e . S i gn i fi cantl y , t he juryw as i nfo rm ed thatun t i l this sui t , there had been no cl ai m s agai nst In g e rso ll-R a n d sin c e it m a n u f a c tu re d its f

irst T 4 W d rill ov e r th irtyy e a rs a g o , an d th u s it c o u ld a ss e ss th e re lev a n c e o f th e b ra c k e t’s u se a g a in st th is b a c k d ro p . In sh o rt, In g e rso llR and’ s ar gum ent s r es pect i ng unfai rpr ej udi ce a r e di r ect ed t o chal l engi ng the w ei ghtof thi s evi dence , and noti t s admi s s i bi l i t y . A tm os t , I nger s ol l - R and s uffe r ed s l i ghtpr ej udi ce, buti n no eventdi d anypr ej udi ce su b sta n tia lly outw ei gh the met al br acke t ’ s pr obat i ve v a lu e . 2 . A dm is s i on of

E xper tTes t i m ony on Al t er nat i ve D es ign T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n perm i t t i ng the Sel l s ’ pr oduct d e sig n liab ili tye x p e rt to tes tifya b o u t an a ltern a tiv e d e sig n in v o lv in g a n a u to m a tic7

i ndexi ng pi n s y s t em. A ft erconduct i ng a D au berthear i ng on s i x pr opos ed al t ernat i ve d e sig n s p ro f

f e re d b yth e S e lls’ e x p e rt, th e D istric t C o u rt lim ited th e e x p e rt’s te stim o n yto tw o al t ernat i ve des i gns . T he fi r s t , di s cus s ed above , w as the pos t - acc i dentm odi fi cat i on actual l yi m pl ement ed byM r . Sel l ’ s empl oy er . T he s econd i nvol ved an a ut om at i c l ocki ng pi n thatw oul d pos i t i vel ypr eventt he mai n car ous el fr om r ot at i ng i n ei t herdi r ect i on i n t he eventthati tbounced outof the t ow er , w hen both car ous el and t ow erar e s t or ed on t op of th e r i g . I n g e r s o l l - Ra n d c h a l l e n g e s a d mi s s i o n o f th e l a t t e ra l t e r n a t i v e d e s i g n u n d e rF. R. E. 702 and D au bert , char gi ng t hatt he r ecor d’ s fai l ur e t o s ubs t ant i at e ac tual r ot at i on of the d rill ren d e rs th is te stim o n yirre lev a n t. R ul e 702 perm i t s i nt r oduct i on of expe r tt es t i m onythatw i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof fa ct pr ovi ded that : “( 1) t he t es t i m onyi s bas ed upon s uffi ci entfac t s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) the w i t nes s has appl i ed the p rin c ip les a n d m e th o d s re liab lyto th e f a c ts o f th e c a se .” T o b e a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t e n s u re th a t th e e v id e n c e o f f e re d is b o th re le v a n t a n d re lia b le . D au bert , 5 0 9 U .S . at 5 8 9 ; Kum ho Ti r e C o. , Ltd. v. C ar m i chael , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 (1 9 9 9 ). T h e S e lls’ e x p e rt a ttes ted th a t a d rill ro d c a n f a ll o u t o f th e a u x ili a ryc u t-o u t ev e n if th e rig ’s b ra k e s a re o p e ra tin g p ro p e rly , the m a in c a ro u se l is sto re d in th e to w e r, th e m a in c a ro u se l an d to w e r a re b o th in th e h o riz o n tal p o sitio n o n to p o f th e rig , an d th e J-lo c k is in pl ace ar ound t he r od i n t he auxi l i arycut - out . Speci fi cal l y , a dr i l l r od m ayfal l outof the a u x ili a ryc u t-o u t u n d e r th e se c o n d iti o n s, a c c o rd in g to th e e x p e rt, i f th e w h e e ls o f

th e rig8

s uffi ci ent l y“hop” w hen movi ng t he dr i l l t o a new s i t e on r ough t err ai n, s uch thati tcaus es the mai n car ous el t o bounce outof the t ow erand r ot at e t o a degr ee thatenabl es a r od w i thoutt he J - l ock att ache d t o m ove i nt o t he auxi l i arycutout . T hi s t es t i m onyi s pert i nent to th e S e lls ’ t h e o ry o f

h o w th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d . I nger s ol l - R and cl ai m s t hatt he r ecor d does nots ubs t ant i at e the theorythatthe a u to m a tic p in in d e x in g sc h e m e w o u ld h a v e p re v e n ted th e a c c id e n t. Itsp e c if ica llyp o in ts t o the l ack of

anydi r ectevi dence of ca r ous el bounce a nd r ot at i on t o t he degr ee r equi r ed f o r a ro d w ith o u t th e J-lo c k to sh if t p o sitio n . C o n tra ryto th is c o n ten tio n , the re is a m p le f a c tu a l su p p o rt f

o r th is e x p e rt tes tim o n yin th e re c o rd , alb e it circ u m sta n tial. T h e d rill oper at ort es t i fi ed thathe obs erved the w heel s of the r i g hop i m m edi at el ybefor e the acc i dentas he w as r epos i t i oni ng t he r i g overthe nextdr i l l i ng l ocat i on, and thatthe car ous el coul d pot ent i al l yr ot at e i f i tbounces outof the t ow er . O n pr i orocca s i ons the dr i l l oper at orw i t nes s ed the ca r ous el bounce a s hi gh as ei ght een i nches r es ul t i ng fr om w heel hop upon m ovemental ong r ough t err ai n. I nger s ol l - R and’ s expertt es t i fi ed thatt he car ous el coul d r ot at e cl ockw i s e i f i tr os e fi ve and one - t hi r d i nches fr om i t s s t ow ed pos i t i on. A l t hough t he oper at ordi d nots ee w hetherthe mai n car ous el bounced outof the t ow erorr ot at ed as a r es ul tof the w heel hop on t hi s part i cul arocca s i on, he di d obs erve i m m edi at el yt her eaf

t ert hatt he mai n car ous el w as i n a r ot at ed pos i t i on on t he gr ound. I nger s ol l - R and poi nt s t o i t s expert ’ s t es t i m onythat , gi ven the pos i t i oni ng of the d islo d g e d ro d in re latio n to th e J-lo c k ro d f o llo w in g th e in c id e n t, th e m a in c a ro u se l w o u ld9

h av e h ad to ro tat e 3 1 5 d eg ree s fo r th e a cc iden t t o h av e o cc u rred as th e S ell s’ ex p ert p ro p o u n d e d , an d th a t ro tatio n to th a t ex ten t is im p o ss ib le. In su p p o rt o f th is a ss e rtio n , it not es undi s put ed t es t i m onyt hatt he br akes on t he ca r ous el , w hi ch s l ow dow n r ot at i on, w er e pr oper l yfunct i oni ng on t he dayof the ac ci dent . I ti s al s o undi s put ed, how ever , t hat th e b ra k e s a re in te n d e d n o t to p ro h ib it r o ta tio n , b u t to re g u la te th e s p e e d o f th e c a ro u s e l. T he j uryw as fr ee t o di s cr edi tt he conc l us i on of I nger s ol l - R and’ s expertthata r ot at i on of 315 degr ees w as r equi r ed forevent s t o unfol d as the Sel l s ’ w i t nes s es des cr i bed, and that s uch r ot at i on w as i m pos s i bl e. T h e S e lls’ p ro d u c t d e sig n e x p e rt’s te stim o n yre g a rd in g th e a u to m a tic in d e x in g p in d e sig n w a s re lev a n t, an d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g it. 3 . C oncl us i on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed on M ar ch 30, 2 0 0 4 , w ill b e a f

f ir m e d .