Opinion ID: 468767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: appellant's theory of liability

Text: 20 Appellant's main contention is that multi-piece rims are unreasonably dangerous because in use the risk is too great that they will not fit together with the exactness required to prevent explosive disassembly. That danger, appellant asserts, is enhanced by, but not limited to, the similarity and appearance of all multi-piece rim components. The contention is that the misfit of the components, whether designed to match or not, is not likely to be detected by users, and that therefore these products of appellees' should not be put into commerce. Appellant further contended that, if the multi-piece design was produced, a more thorough warning should have been given to the users. 8 21 It is important, but difficult, to determine at the outset the appropriate level of generality at which to assess appellant's claims. As the court noted in Bell Helicopter Co. v. Bradshaw, 594 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App.1979), a case involving a helicopter crash, The threshold question ... is the identity of the product being litigated. Id. at 529. The court rejected as artificial and of little analytical value defendants' suggested characterization of the product at issue as the actual helicopter blade that broke. On the other hand, the court also rejected plaintiffs' suggestion that the product being litigated was the whole helicopter and all relevant product information accompanying its sale. Instead, the court navigated a course between these two definitions of the product--one too narrow and specific, the other too broad and general--in arriving at the 102 series tail rotor system as the defective product: That system failed to perform on the day in question. Id. 22 This case presents similar problems of characterization. Viewed from the narrowest perspective, the product at issue here is the particular truck wheel that exploded. In order to make out a case of products liability, or negligence, appellant must connect up something appellees did (or failed to do) with what happened to Oscar Jackson. Needless to say, Goodyear and Firestone do not plan, design, manufacture, or market wheel components on an individual basis. Appellees did not do anything relevantly different to the particular wheel components that failed here that was not done to millions of other such components of the same size, shape, and model. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Firestone 5? rim base or the Goodyear LW side ring are unique models of multi-piece wheel components that presented special problems of design, manufacture, or marketing. Indeed, it is not even clear that appellees ever focused their corporate attention upon these particular models as such. Thus, appellees' efforts to design, manufacture, and market wheel components of the same general type as the particular parts that failed here are relevant to appellant's strict liability and negligence theories. 23 As part of her theory of liability outlined above, appellant raises a number of issues regarding the exclusion of evidence. Specifically, appellant argues that the following sorts of evidence are relevant and important to her case: (1) evidence of the availability of an alternative, safer product; (2) evidence of the similar appearance of other similarly designed products; (3) evidence of similar accidents involving similarly designed products. 24 Evidence of the availability of a safer alternative product would, if believed by the jury, tend to show that the product in question was unreasonably dangerous if (a) the product is dangerous, and (b) the safer alternative was not technologically unfeasible or prohibitively costly. 25 Evidence of the similar appearance of other similarly designed products would be necessary to establish that the Firestone 5? rim base and the Goodyear LW side ring have a propensity to be mismatched, not merely with each other, but with other such components that are similar in appearance. If the jury has no reason to believe that other multi-piece wheel components are similar in design and appearance, then the mismatch argument cannot really be made--appellant is reduced to arguing only that the Goodyear LW side ring could be confused with a Firestone side ring and that the Firestone 5? rim base could be confused with a Goodyear rim base. 26 Evidence of similar accidents involving similarly designed products goes to the reasonableness of putting such a product on the market. Appellant should be allowed to show, if she can, that products similar in all relevant respects to appellees' have a long history of unacceptable accident rates, and that appellees were well aware of this situation at the time they made the particular products at issue here. Such evidence, if believed by the jury, would, in conjunction with evidence of safer alternatives, tend to show the unreasonableness of putting appellees' products on the market. 9 27 Much of this evidence was excluded by the district court below. On March 28, 1984, the court entered a severe order in limine, which reads in part as follows: 28 Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and any witnesses called or examined by Plaintiff are ordered to refrain from mentioning any of the following matters and from directing questions reasonably calculated to elicit answers referring to any of the following matters, except after approaching the Court out of the hearing of the Jury and obtaining a ruling that such matters are admissible before the Jury: 29 .... 30 (3) Any reference to or mention whatsoever of a proposal before the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to ban all multi-piece wheels. 31 .... 32 (7) Any reference to or mention of any multi-piece wheels other than the LW and the 5? in issue in this litigation. 33 (8) Any statement during open argument including references to any misrepresentations or dishonesty of the defendants or the use of terms such as the widow maker, the suicide wheel or the killer wheel or the use of other such inflammatory language. 34 (9) Any reference to or mention whatsoever of a segment of a television program entitled 60 Minutes devoted to multi-piece wheels. 35 .... 36 (13) Any reference to or mention whatsoever of any documents generated by non-parties to this litigation. 37 .... 38 (15) Any reference to or mention of any other litigation involving multi-piece wheels, including the use of documents or exhibits bearing other cause numbers or names. 39 (16) Any reference to or mention of any confidential documents (all documents in M.D.L. 362 were designated confidential and subject to a protective order) or to You are the first jury to see these documents or Test this design or similar statements which are calculated to inflame the jury and to suggest that the Defendants have in some manner hidden the facts or evidence in this matter. 40 .... 41 (18) Any reference to or mention of the Goodyear Rim Exchange Program begun in 1977. 42 .... 43 (22) Any evidence or argument relating to the consolidation of lawsuits involving multi-piece rims, and any discovery conducted therein, styled In Re: Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, MDL 362. 44 4 Record on Appeal (Rec.) at 761-66. These limited excerpts from the order in limine serve to suggest its rather draconian sweep. In theoretical terms, the order might be defended on grounds that it does no more than ensure that questionable matters will not be presented to the jury before their admissibility has been ruled on. In practical terms, however, the order amounts to a presumption against admissibility of the items enumerated, some of which constitute essential elements of appellant's theories of recovery, as outlined above. For example, the presumption against admissibility of reference to or mention of any multi-piece wheels other than the LW and the 5? strikes at the heart of appellant's mismatch theory. As noted previously, and as will be developed more fully below, the relevant comparison base for a mismatch argument is the whole range of indistinguishable multi-piece wheel components, not merely the matching parts to the components at issue here. 45 Of course, even if the order in limine were facially unobjectionable, inquiry would still necessarily focus on the way it was applied. The record reflects that in most instances it was strictly applied, and that the presumption against admissibility hardened into an actual ruling against admissibility. 10 The following sections analyze some of the district court's more important rulings on the exclusion of evidence.