Court Opinion

ID: 9470330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:02:32.968679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:50.457791
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with Parts I, II and III of the majority opinion. I respectfully dissent from Part IV of the majority opinion dealing with evidence of subsequent remedial measures and, therefore, would affirm the judgment for defendants.
I disagree that the testimony in this case involves a question of feasibility. This line of Malloy’s testimony commences:
Q Did you also, sir, before you went into operation, meet with a representative of the Village of Edmundson Police Department?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did he also make recommendations to you as to what could or should be done insofar as security is concerned?
*1215A Yes, he did. Uh-huh.
Solid core doors, Triple A door locks, and bar pins in sliding doors were all recommended. The witness was asked:
Q You did follow his recommendations and you did do that?
A We did, yes.
The testimony set out on page 1213 of the majority opinion followed. There was then testimony of a recommendation of an additional guard from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
’When plaintiffs’ offer of proof was made, the district court stated:
There is no question of feasibility in this situation. He said he went on the recommendation, whether it’s good, bad, right or wrong. He hasn’t said anything which says it wasn’t feasible or would cost too much.
In considering evidence questions, we reverse only for abuse of discretion. Haynes v. American Motors Corp., 691 F.2d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir.1982); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Jensen, 667 F.2d 714, 722 (8th Cir.1981). I cannot find that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony on this issue involved recommendations and not feasibility. The testimony on the sense of false security deals only with the reasons for the recommendations. All of the testimony set out above as well as that in the majority opinion abundantly supports the district court ruling.
The term “feasible” has been defined by the Supreme Court in American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2478, 69 L.Ed.2d 185 (1981). Justice Brennan in his opinion states:
The plain meaning of the word “feasible” supports respondents’ interpretation of the statute. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 831 (1976), “feasible” means “capable of being done, executed, or effected.” Accord, The Oxford English Dictionary 116 (1933) (“Capable of being done, accomplished or carried out”); Funk & Wagnalls New “Standard” Dictionary of the English Language 903 (1957) (“That may be done, performed or effected”). Thus, § 6(b)(5) directs the Secretary to issue the standard that “most adequately assures . . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health,” limited only by the extent to which this is “capable of being done.” 452 U.S. 508-9, 101 S.Ct. at 2490, 69 L.Ed.2d 201-202.
The ruling of the district court was consistent with this definition of feasible. While Mr. Justice Brennan’s opinion deals with use of the word in 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5), his broad treatment of the word “feasible” cannot be limited simply to that statute as opposed to its use in Rule 407, which was presented to Congress and subject to Congressional action.
In American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist observed “the remarkable range of interpretation” of the term “to the extent feasible.” 452 U.S. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 2508. The majority opinion here reaches to the second dictionary definition of feasible in order to conclude that feasibility was controverted.1 Where the district court has made a ruling consistent with the Supreme Court definition of the word “feasible,” I think we should not find error in its failing to consider the second meaning of this word that has a “remarkable range of interpretation.”
The majority finds feasibility an issue not from direct testimony that feasibility was involved, but rather by inferring that it is an issue from the testimony concerning false sense of security which was given as the reason for the recommendation of the police chief. My view is that this testimony *1216relates to the question of necessity or desirability and that the majority stretches the chain of inferences too far.
The view expressed here is supported by decisions from other circuits. The Fourth Circuit in Werner v. Upjohn Co., Inc., 628 F.2d 848 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1080, 101 S.Ct. 862, 66 L.Ed.2d 804 (1981), held that defendant did not controvert the feasibility of an additional drug product warning; it merely questioned the necessity of such a warning. Id. at 855. The Seventh Circuit in Oberst v. International Harvester Co., Inc., 640 F.2d 863 (7th Cir.1980) held that evidence of a design change excluded at trial would have been cumulative since it was clear that design alternatives were commercially available. So here the issue was the necessity or reasons for not using peepholes and chain locks which undoubtedly were commercially available. The evidence simply was that they were not recommended and therefore not used.
Plaintiffs make no contention with respect to the impeachment exception to Rule 407, neither did they make such contention at trial. I find no testimony in the record that defendants stated that they had done everything necessary for a secure motel, but simply that they had received recommendations from the chief of police and followed these recommendations. I find no testimony of defendants that chain locks and peepholes could not be used successfully, but only that the majority has inferred such statements from the testimony of false sense of security. I think we should not find impeachment of defendants on the basis of inferences the majority draws from the testimony.
Defendants’ closing argument stressed the recommendations given by the chief of police. The closing argument certainly cannot be used to justify introduction of evidence during the course of the trial. While defendants posed the question of “what more can they do” the statement, read in context, simply argues that defendants had followed expert recommendations. The following is the omission from the quotation on page 1214 of the majority opinion:
You go to the chief of the police or of the area where you’re working and you ask him, “What should I do,” and he tells you and you do it. You call in Union Electric and they say put in 10 more lights, you put in 10 more lights.
The argument continued:
These gentlemen were concerned about the safety of their guests, concerned enough to seek professional help from Union Electric and from the chief of police, and not only to seek it, but to follow the advice that was given them. What more could they do?
Defendants’ argument viewed in its entirety related to the police chief’s recommendation and was fully supported by the evidence.
Plaintiffs’ attempted introduction of defendants’ subsequent remedial measures was an attempt “solely to raise the spectre of negligence under the guise of feasibility.” J. Cotchett & A. Elkind, Federal Courtroom Evidence, at 58-59. The trial court is entitled to guard against the improper admission of such evidence. See 10 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 407.04 at p. IV-159 (2d ed. 1982); 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 1407[05] at p. 407-26 (1982).
I cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony involved matters of recommendation rather than feasibility, and in making a ruling that is consistent with the plain meaning of feasible as recognized in the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, I would affirm.

. Not only the dictionaries cited by the majority but also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Funk & Wagnall’s, Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary, Webster’s New World Dictionary, and The Oxford English Dictionary all give as the first definition that recognized by the Supreme Court in American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2478, 69 L.Ed.2d 185 (1981) and as the second definition that recognized by the majority in its opinion.