Opinion ID: 1134663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidentiary and procedural rulings

Text: Caterpillar asserts error in the exclusion of evidence which would have tended to show its marketing arrangements with various equipment dealers, its efforts (after the manufacture and sale of the 944 model) to educate dealers about the danger of operating loaders without ROPS, and the efforts undertaken by dealers to reach purchasers with information regarding ROPS. The bulk of this evidence was properly excluded either because it was irrelevant or because the foundation for the evidence was not firmly established. To the extent that any portions of the excluded evidence could show in a direct manner the comparative fault of the decedent, they may be offered again at any retrial. We find no reason to review the excluded evidence in detail. Similarly, we do not reach the question of whether the court erred in requiring Caterpillar and Nenana Excavators, since dismissed as a party, to share three peremptory challenges between them. REVERSED and REMANDED. [65] BURKE, J., concurring and dissenting.