Court Opinion

ID: 9857811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:02:12.105484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:29.839637
License: Public Domain

NEUMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
It is one thing to permit introduction of proof countering evidence in the record; it is quite another to reopen the record for purposes of countering counsel’s argument. Juries are routinely instructed that “statements, arguments, questions, and comments” by lawyers are not evidence. Iowa Civ. Jury *269Instr., Model Instr. No. 4. Compounding the error here, the idea of reopening the record came from the court, not counsel. Plaintiffs counsel, eager to avoid a retrial, merely urged that “[defense] counsel should be admonished about this, and ... required to withdraw those statements and correct the record.”
Perhaps more importantly, the majority— like the district court — has mischaracterized the dispute as one over the feasibility of welding the grate. Defendant was not contesting the feasibility of welding the grate to prevent it from slipping or tipping; the grate obviously was capable of being welded down. Plaintiffs argument merely sought to explain that welding “would not work” because it would destroy the grate’s functionality — removal to allow for cleaning of collected debris. The drain was designed, to allow the grate to be removed for this purpose.
In product liability eases, a number of courts have held that discussing or arguing the tradeoffs involved in taking precautionary measures does not implicate the feasibility exception to rule 407. See Gauthier v. AMF, Inc., 788 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir.1986); Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463, 468 (7th Cir.1984); Bush v. Michelin Tire Corp., 963 F.Supp. 1436, 1450 (W.D.Ky.1996). If it did, the “feasibility” exception to rule 407 would swallow the rule. Bush, 963 F.Supp. at 1450. “Feasibility” under rule 407 merely refers to mechanical or technological obstacles in connection with the allegedly defective instrumentality, and the defendants ability to overcome them. See id. This, of course, was never an issue in the case before us. ' Thus the feasibility exception to rule 407 arguably had no application. See Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 763-64 (5th Cir.1989).
Whether the welding amounted to inadmissible proof of remedial conduct or admissible proof of feasibility of precautionary measures, the court’s ruling — right or wrong— was properly made on the evidentiary record. Revisiting the issue during closing argument unnecessarily emphasized the corrective measures and made defense counsel appear a liar. Upon objection by opposing counsel, the court should have simply cautioned the jury to disregard defense counsel’s assertion. What transpired instead was a highly unusual scenario, unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, which our court of appeals rightly recognized as compelling a new trial. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, thereby reversing the district court.
LAVORATO and TERNUS, JJ., join this dissent.