Opinion ID: 581430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of the Recall

Text: 6 The Bizzles contend Federal Rule of Evidence 407 does not prohibit evidence of a recall in strict products liability cases. 3 They further contend there was no sound, practical reason for excluding evidence of the recall. 7 The Bizzles' characterization of Rule 407 is correct. Donahue v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 866 F.2d 1008, 1013 (8th Cir.1989) ([i]t has long been the law of this Circuit that Rule 407 does not preclude the introduction of evidence of subsequent remedial measures in a strict liability case.). Nevertheless, the district court reached the correct result, even if for the wrong reason. In reviewing a case upon appeal, this court may 'affirm on any ground supported by the record, even though that ground was not directly addressed (or, in fact, addressed at all) in the court below.'  First Nat'l Bank in Brookings v. United States, 829 F.2d 697, 699 (8th Cir.1987) (quoting Katter v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 765 F.2d 730, 734-35 (8th Cir.1985)). In addition to objecting on the basis of Rule 407, Acorn's counsel objected that evidence of the recall was unduly prejudicial. Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.... Assuming, without deciding, that the Bizzles had sufficient evidence to prove that Carl's cane was manufactured by Acorn, there was minimal evidence to suggest that Carl's cane was the same model that Acorn recalled. The recall's minimal probative value was easily outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice to Acorn and of misleading the jury caused by the very real possibility that Carl's cane was not subject to the recall. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in refusing to admit evidence of the recall.