N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAVID M IC HER

Y, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. FORD M O TOR

C OM PANY, a

De la ware c orporation, De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-56844 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-04957-R SW L-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld S.W . Le w , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 8, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d M UR GUIA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nt Da vid M ic h e ry

(M ic h e ry ), who wa s se ve re l y injure d during a n
a c c ide nt whiledriving a 1999 Ford Expe d ition ma n u fa c ture d by Appe lle e Ford 

# F IL ED SEP 10 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.M otor C om

pa ny (Ford), a p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt e nte re d in fa vor of Ford a fte r a

jury tria l. M ic he ry

a lle ge d tha

t his injurie s re sulte d from a de sign de fe c t in the Ford Expe dition’ s front bum pe r. 1. A ne w tria l is not wa rrante d ba se d

on thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to instruc t the jury

on c om pa rative fa ult a fte r Ford withdre w its a ffirm ative de fe nse . Unde r C a lifornia la w, Ford prope rly

a sse rte d tha

t M ic h e ry wa s una ble to de m onstra

te tha t his injurie s we re c a

use d by a de sign de fe c t. S

e e De m a ra v . The Ray mond C

orp. , 13 C a l . App. 5th 545, 553 (2017) (e xpla ining tha

t “ the pla intiff
m ust provetha

t the de s ign wa s a

substa ntia l fa c tor in c a

using a n injury ” ) (c ita

tions
om i tte d). M ic h e ry

is a lso una

ble to de m onstra

te the re q uisitepre judic e . Se e Dunlap v . Libe rty

N at. Prods., Inc

. , 878 F.3d 794, 798 (9th C ir. 2017) (a rtic ulating that instruc tiona l e rror is ha

rm l e ss “ [w] he re it is more proba b le tha n not tha t the jury would ha ve re a c he d the sa

m e ve rdic t ha d it be e n prope rly instruc te d” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The jury ne v e r re a c he d the issue of c a usation, inste a d

re nde ring its verdic t in fa vor of Ford ba s e d e xc lusive ly on the risk-be ne fit de sign te st— an e ntire ly indepe nde nt ba s is for de te rm ining tha t Ford
wa s not lia

ble
. Se e De m ara , 13 C a l. App. 5th a t 562 (a pply ing risk-be ne fit te st unde r C a lifornia

la w).

22. The distric t c ourt prope rly e xc lude d unde r R

ule 407 of theFe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e (R

ule 407) 1 de sign im

prove m e nts to other ve h ic le s se ve ra l y e ars
a fte r the m anufa c ture of the 1999 Ford Expe dition. Ford’ s e xpe rt a c knowle dge d that re i nforc e m e nt of theExpe dition’ s front bum p e r wa s fe a sible , but c ha lle nge d the utility of M ic he ry ’ s propose d de sign, thus pre c luding e vide n c e of subse que nt
re m e dia l m e a sure s. Se eGauthie r v . AMF, Inc
. , 788 F.2d 634, 637-38 (9th C ir. 1986) (e xpla ining tha

t, unde r R ule 407, “whe re a

de fe nda nt a rgue s a bout thetra de
offs involve d in ta

king pre c a

utiona ry m e a sure s , it is not pla

c ing fe asibility

in issue ” ) (c ita

tion omitte d ) (e m

pha sis in the

origina l). Alte rnative ly , the distric t

c ourt prope rly

e xc lude d subse que nt re m e dia l
m e a sure s im

ple m e nte d on ve hic le s m anufa c ture d se ve ra l y e ars a fte r the 1999 Ford Expe dition a s unduly pre

judic ia l unde r R

u le 403 of theFe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e . Se eMc C o llough v . J

o h nson, Rodenburg &Lauinge r, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 953 (9th C ir. 2011) (sta

ting tha t “ re le va nt e vide nc e m

ust bee x c lude d if its proba tive va lue

1 M i c he ry

fa i le d to ra ise in distric t c ourt his a sse rtion tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d unde r ErieR. R. C

o. v . Tompk

ins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938) in a pply i ng R ule 407 in lie u of C a lifornia ’ s m ore le nie nt e vide ntia ry rule s. The re fore , we de c l ine to a ddre s s this issue

on a ppe a l. S e eYamada v . N

obe l Bioc areHolding AG , 825 F.3d 536, 543 (9th C ir. 2016), as ame nde d (“ Ge n e ra lly , a

n a p pe lla t e c ourt will not he ar an issuera ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. . . .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). In a

ny e ve nt, we have re c ogniz e d tha

t R ule 407 is thegove rning proc e d ura l rule unde r Erie
. S

e e Rosa v . Tase r Int’l, Inc

. , 684 F.3d 941, 948-49 (9th C i r. 2012). 3is substa

ntia lly outwe ighe d by the da

nge r of unfa ir pre

judic e , c onfusion of the issue s, or m isle a ding thejury ” ) (c ita tion omi tte d). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in its form ulation of the
ve rdic t form . Although listing c a usation a s the first issue to be de c ide d by the jury would ha ve be e n m ore c onsiste nt with C a lifornia ’ s c ivil jury instruc tions, se e C a l
. C iv. Jury Inst. 1204, M ic he ry

fa ils to de m onstra

te tha t the ve rdic t form

im prope rly shifte d the burde n of proof unde r the risk-be ne fit te st. Thejury wa s prope rly instruc te d tha

t Ford ha d the burde n of proof unde r the risk-be ne fit te st, a nd we pre s um e tha

t the jury followe d this instruction. Se eW e e k s v . Ange lone , 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000). AFFIRM E D.

4