Court Opinion

ID: 9752243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:52:00.306881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:11.760057
License: Public Domain

*563NEWMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the conclusion of the Majority that evidence of a subsequent design change is irrelevant in a strict products liability action to show product defect. However, I dissent because I do not believe that Langston “opened the door” to the admissibility of evidence of the subsequent design change. Accordingly, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence as irrelevant. Thus, I would reverse the decision of the Superior Court on this issue.
The testimony that the Majority cites to support its conclusion must be taken in the context of the trial, which shows that it was Duchess, and not Langston, that constantly injected feasibility of an alternative design into the trial, even though Langston had conceded that the interlock device was technologically possible. For instance, counsel for Duchess read to the jury answers to interrogatories indicating that, at the time Langston manufactured the Saturn III, Langston possessed the interlock technology. (R. 342a). Further, Langston admitted that the interlock “existed on other substantially similar machines manufactured by Langston.” Id. Then, Duchess presented testimony from expert John Frank, who testified in response to a question as to whether the interlock at issue was feasible:
it is completely feasible and there is absolutely no reason for it not to have been incorporated in its design ...
(R. 359a) (emphasis added).
Further, when asked by counsel for Duchess, and not by Langston, whether the incorporation of an interlock was practical, Mr. Frank responded that it was:
Simply because it could be done; interlocks are incorporated in the design of many, many machines, in many different applications. There are millions of interlocks in existence for this reason ...
Id. He also commented, on cross examination that:
The concept of interlocks and the need of interlocks is well recognized by Langston. Many interlocks are incorporated *564into this machine. Unfortunately, they just left this one out.
(R. 412). Further, on cross-examination as to the downsides of an interlock, Mr. Frank responded:
The experience is that there is no such problem as that in the use of interlocks like that in this application, It is completely feasible. There is no reason in the world why it can’t be done.
(R. 416a).
In this context, Langston presented the testimony of its expert, Peter Schwalje, an engineer, who again agreed that an interlock could have been placed on the machine. (R. 565a). He, however, opined that the interlock was not necessary because “the motion hazards which were there were adequately recognized or adequately provided for by the safeguards.” (R. 565a). He then testified to the “downsides” of the interlock as follows:
The downsides are that if you have an interlock in this particular application, you preclude the ability of the people setting up the machine to set the printing unit up properly. There is also the inherent downsides associated with any form of an interlock device; the unit becomes a reliance mechanism to shut down the machine instead of shutting down through switches in this environment that they can accumulate ink inside and the internals will not operate. There are normal downsides associated with any control device. The primary design consideration is the ability to properly set up the printing section. That is why when you evaluate the design of this, that is the consideration that is overrunning.
(R. 570a). It is this testimony that the Majority opines “opened the door” to the introduction of evidence of subsequent design changes to the Saturn III. I disagree because I do not believe that this testimony contests the mechanical or technological feasibility of the interlock device and the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of the subsequent design changes as irrelevant to the *565issue at trial. Abbott, supra, 263 A.2d at 884. Instead, the testimony of Langston’s expert was in fair response to the repeated statements of the expert for Duchess that there was no reason for the interlock to be absent from the design of the Saturn III. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse. its discretion in refusing to allow evidence of subsequent remedial measures into the trial, and I would reverse the Superior Court on this issue.