Opinion ID: 3009859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Relevance of Previous Tractor Rollovers

Text: Deere contends that it was severely prejudiced at trial when Barker was permitted repeatedly to place into evidence facts and statements concerning the history of other farm accidents and, in particular, tractor rollovers. Barker claims that this evidence was offered to prove that: (1) the Deere 620 tractor was defective on the theory that it did not possess an OPS to protect the operator from the consequences of rollovers, Appellee's brief at 12; and (2) the OPS was an alternative, safer design, practicable (or feasible) under the circumstances,0 id. -- two 0 Barker offers a third justification for admission of tractor rollover evidence, namely it was relevant to prove that the placement of the OPS on the Deere 620 presented no mechanical incompatibility. As noted in Habecker, 36 F.3d at 286, 6 elements which must be proven in order to succeed under a theory of crashworthiness. See supra n.3. Deere maintains that evidence concerning tractor rollovers, and injuries and deaths caused by those rollovers, was not relevant to any issue in this case which did not involve a tractor rollover. Specifically, Deere objected to the testimony of John Sevart (Sevart), Barker's expert witness, who testified to the following: (1) in 1950, and increasing at a rate of 40 to 50 a year for the remainder of the decade, there were approximately 640 tractor deaths to farmers; App. at 265; (2) approximately 60% of the fatalities were caused by rollover accidents; App. at 266; (3) approximately 30% of the fatalities occurred as a result of the operator being ejected out of the seat and run over or being struck by a falling object; App. at 266; and (4) for every operator killed during this time span, an additional 40 people were injured; App. at 267. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states in relevant part, [e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. We now turn to analysis of whether evidence of rollover accidents is relevant to prove: (1) mechanical incompatibility is an element which points to a lack of feasibility, and this is incorporated in Barker's second asserted justification for admission of evidence of rollover accidents. 7 a design defect; and (2) that an alternative, safer, feasible design existed. In assessing whether evidence proffered as direct proof of a design defect is relevant in a products liability (crashworthy) case, we observe: In the appropriate circumstances, evidence of prior occurrences and accidents involving a product which is identical or substantially similar to the product which has allegedly caused an injury has generally been held to be admissible at trial. [S]uch evidence may be considered by the trial court for admission in . . . strict liability . . . actions. The almost universal requirement, however, is that the prior occurrence must involve facts and circumstances which are substantially similar to those involved in the case under consideration or they will be excluded. 2A Louis Frumer & Melvin Friedman, Products Liability § 18.02[1], at 18-14 to 18-17 (1995) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). We note that every court of appeals to have considered this issue agrees that when a plaintiff attempts to introduce evidence of other accidents as direct proof of a design defect, the evidence is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates that the accidents occurred under circumstances substantially similar to those at issue in the case at bar. See Burke v. Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 506 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 114 S. Ct. 1063 (1994); Lockley v. Deere & Co., 933 F.2d 1378, 1386 (8th Cir. 1991); Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Ross v. Black & Decker, Inc., 977 F.2d 1178, 1185 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 113 S. Ct. 1274 (1993); Cooper v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 945 8 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1991); Anderson v. Whittaker Corp., 894 F.2d 804, 813 (6th Cir. 1990); Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641, 649 (11th Cir. 1990); Melton v. Deere & Co., 887 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1989); Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404, 1408 (10th Cir. 1988); McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir. 1981); cf. Estate of Carey v. Hy-Temp Mfg., Inc., 929 F.2d 1229, 1235 n.2 (7th Cir. 1991) ([W]e caution that `substantially similar' does not mean `identical.'). This foundational requirement of establishing substantial similarity is especially important in cases where the evidence is proffered to show the existence of a design defect. See Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 847 F.2d 1261, 1268-69 (7th Cir. 1988). In such cases, the jury is invited to infer from the presence of other accidents that a design defect existed which contributed to the plaintiffs' injuries. See id. at 1269; see also C.A. Associates v. Dow Chemical Co., 918 F.2d 1485, 1489 (10th Cir. 1990) (noting that in a product liability action, the occurrence of similar accidents or failures involving the same product holds great relevance, since evidence of such failures tends to make the existence of a defect more probable than it would be without the evidence). We observe that the district court must be apprised of the specific facts of previous accidents in order to make a reasoned determination as to whether the prior accidents are substantially similar. Absent such a foundation, it is impossible for the district court in the first instance, and for this court on appeal, to review the facts in order to make a 9 determination as to similarity. See Hardy v. Chemetron Corp., 870 F.2d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1989) (upholding the trial court's refusal to admit evidence because there was a total lack of evidence on the crucial question of substantial similarity); Nachtsheim, 847 F.2d at 1269 (7th Cir. 1988) ([T]here are too few established facts about the [prior] accident from which a comparison between the two accidents can be made.) (emphasis in original); Lewy v. Remington Arms Co., 836 F.2d 1104, 1109 (8th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff's counsel failed to lay an adequate foundation to show that other evidence was similar); McKinnon, 638 F.2d at 277 (1st Cir. 1981) (The record is totally devoid of [a] showing of the circumstances under which these accidents occurred.) (footnote omitted). Our primary concern is that Barker has not presented sufficient evidence which could lead the district court to believe that the prior accidents were in any way similar to the case before us. The record contained only raw numbers and statistical extrapolations. At most, we are able to discern from the testimony of Barker's expert witness that approximately 190 persons (30% of 640 fatalities) were killed in tractor accidents as a result of being: (1) ejected from the seat; (2) run over; and/or (3) hit by a falling object.0 However, there are no documented cases of an injury/death arising from an accident with a Deere 620 tractor where an object entered the operator area and 0 We question how the other 384 (60% of 640) fatalities that resulted from tractor rollover accidents are similar, let alone substantially similar to the case before us which did not involve a tractor rollover. 10 ejected the operator from his seat. We hold Barker failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that any prior accident is substantially similar to the accident which led to his injuries.0 Moreover, what scant evidence was admitted did not contain any specific information with regard to the details of any single accident. All evidence of accidents where an object entered the operator area was presented via the National Safety Council statistics. This evidence concerned tractors generally, not specifically John Deere tractors and not Deere 620 tractors. Furthermore, most of the evidence of fatalities was characteristic of rollovers, and we are uncertain of the specifics of any non-rollover accidents. Barker was attempting to prove a defect in the Deere 620 tractor by submitting evidence of injuries/deaths and evidence of a possible defect in other tractors that were involved in rollover accidents. The jury was invited to infer that over 500 lives per year would be saved if there were a rollover bar on the Deere 620 tractor. We fail to comprehend how any of the prior accidents were substantially similar to the case before us. All of the evidence of prior tractor accidents that was introduced as direct evidence of a 0 Assuming arguendo that Barker was successful in proving that some of the prior accidents were substantially similar to his accident, we question how the introduction of death statistics was relevant. As part of his case-in-chief, Barker was attempting to show the feasibility of design of the operator protective structure, not the need for such a device. The existence of accidents and fatalities that occurred goes to prove the need for the protective structure, not its feasibility. 11 design defect should have been excluded as irrelevant pursuant to Rule 402. Next, we address whether evidence of rollover accidents is relevant to prove that an alternative, safer, feasible design existed at the time of manufacture of the Deere 620 which would have prevented or mitigated some of Barker's injuries. In order to prove this element of his claim, Barker must show that an OPS design existed which would provide protection against the recognized hazards that a tractor engages and also pose no additional risk to the operator. Habecker, 36 F.3d at 284-86. The evidence presented at trial by Barker revealed that there were three recognized hazards known prior to the manufacture of the Deere 620: (1) injury from falling objects; (2) injury from ejection from the operator seat; and (3) injury from tractor rollovers. Barker was thus obligated to prove that the OPS, which he claims would have prevented the log from hitting and ejecting him, would also have protected the operator in the event of a rollover, the most common type of tractor accident. Stated differently, if Barker failed to prove that the proposed OPS did not protect against rollovers, as well as against intrusions into the operator area, then the proposed OPS would not be a safer design. Evidence of tractor rollover accidents would also enable the jury to understand the necessity for the precise design of the OPS. Thus, evidence regarding the existence of tractor 12 rollover accidents is relevant to proving one element of a crashworthy case.0 Our observation that Barker must prove that the OPS provides protection in the event of rollover accidents in order to satisfy that element of his claim does not necessarily mean that all of the evidence of rollover accidents introduced at trial was relevant. Evidence of specific rollover accidents is not relevant unless it is sufficiently related to the Deere 620. That is, the evidence must be probative of the type of accidents that would have influenced the designers of the Deere 620, had they been designing an OPS for the Deere 620. Instead, the evidence at trial dealt with all accidents on all tractors during the period leading up to the development of the Deere 620. Absent a sufficient foundation for the premise that tractor designers must examine accidents that affect other analogous products of other manufacturers, evidence of all accidents on all tractors during the development of the Deere 620 would not be sufficiently probative of whether an OPS for the Deere 620 would have had to protect against rollovers, as well as intrusions. Because both the volume of evidence regarding rollovers and the specific introduction of estimated fatalities and injuries resulting from 0 At a bare minimum, plaintiff must be allowed to introduce general evidence which indicates there are three common types of tractor accidents and that most accidents involving tractors were of the rollover type. We do not foreclose or limit the plaintiff's proofs in demonstrating that the alternative, feasible, safer design must encompass protection against intrusions, as well as ejections and rollovers. Some allusion to rollover accidents is necessary in plaintiff's attempt to prove that an alternative, feasible, safer design existed when the product was manufactured. 13 rollover accidents involving other tractors was not relevant to Barker's case, this evidence should have been excluded.0