Opinion ID: 378192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., loss of services as a housekeeper, etc

Text: 5 Nestled in International Harvester's overly conclusory argument on this point is a challenge to the district judge's admission into evidence of manufacturing standards and design changes that post-dated manufacture of the truck in question. While we agree with the company that such post-manufacture evidence can not be used to prove the defective design of the product at the time it was manufactured, Hursh & Bailey, American Law of Products Liability 2d, § 9:19 at 308 (1974), we note that such evidence is admissible when used to rebut testimony asserting that particular designs are not feasible. See Underhill v. Baker, 115 N.H. 469, 343 A.2d 643 (1975); Reynolds v. Maine Mfg. Co., 81 N.H. 421, 128 A. 329 (1925) In the instant case, the district judge admitted into evidence the fact that Harvester itself changed design shortly after the 1966 model year, adding a dual brake design and adding padding to the cab. This was after the company asserted such design modifications were not feasible. 6 See note 5, supra 7 Even if Thibault were the law of this case, the use of special verdicts is apparently not mandatory. In rejecting application of RSA 507:7-a (Supp.1977) and its general verdict requirement in the strict liability context and announcing new rules, the Court spoke in permissive terms: . . . the jury should then usually be asked by special verdict if plaintiff's proof has met the requirements of the Restatement. . . . 118 N.H. at 813, 395 A.2d at 850; . . . trial judges have the inherent power to use special questions and verdicts to guide the jury . . . . Id. Use of the special verdict is permissible in strict liability cases despite the language of RSA 507:7-a . . . . Id. (Emphasis added)