The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Products Liability Litigation:
Addressing Other Similar Incidents
and Lack of Prior Accidents Evidence Navigating Admissibility Issues, Building a Solid Foundation
Through Incident Reporting Procedures, and More
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
Stephen J. McConnell, Partner, Reed Smith, Philadelphia
Sean P. Wajert, Esq., Managing Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Philadelphia
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can
address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your
participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance
Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email
that you will receive immediately following the program.
For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926
ext. 35.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Program Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Products Liability Litigation: Addressing Other Similar Incidents
and Lack of Prior Accidents Evidence
5
Presented By:
Stephen J. McConnell Partner Reed Smith – Philadelphia [email protected]
Sean P. Wajert Partner Shook, Hardy & Bacon – Philadelphia [email protected]
The Power of Other Similar Incident Evidence
6
• Merely “circumstantial” evidence?
• Or reversible error?
General Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga. App. 875, 447 S.E.2d 302 (1994).
The Potential Relevance of Other Similar Incident Evidence
7
• Strict liability and negligence • Complexity of approaches
• Existence and nature of the defect • Magnitude of danger/risk • Feasible safer alternative?
• Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R. Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1081 (8th Cir. 2000) (evidence of similar incidents may be relevant to prove the magnitude of the danger, the product's lack of safety for intended uses)
• Shipler v. Gen. Motors Corp., 710 N.W.2d 807, 834–35 (Neb. 2006) (evidence of other similar incidents allowed to support allegation that the design of the Blazer's roof structure was defective)
The Potential Relevance of Other Similar Incident Evidence
8
• Causation
• Circumstantial • Causation of the other incident • Impact on such other issues as contributory negligence, misuse, alteration
• Bass v. Cincinnati, Inc., 536 N.E.2d 831, 833 (Ill. App. 1989) (It is “common sense that the higher the number of accidents involving a product the more likely it is that the product is the cause of the accidents”)
The Potential Relevance of Other Similar Incident Evidence
9
• Notice • Notice of what?
• Failure to warn issues • A word about timing of the similar incidents • Limited use = limited scope? • Any reason to admit knowledge?
• E.g., Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 410 F. Supp. 2d 855, 863–64 (D.N.D. 2006)
The Potential Relevance of Other Similar Incident Evidence
10
• Witness issues
• Impeachment of fact witness / rebuttal • Expert credentials / Impeach the expert
• E.g., Graves v. CAS Medical Systems, 735 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 2012)
The Potential Relevance of Other Similar Incident Evidence
11
• Punitive Damages?
• State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
How Similar is Similar?
12
Foundation
How Similar is Similar?
13
Burden on Plaintiff
-- even during cross-examination of defense expert Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404 (10th Cir. 1998)
How Similar is Similar?
14
Sliding Scale
• Defect v. Notice
How Similar is Similar?
15
• Product
• Defect
• Conduct
How Similar is Similar?
16
• Circumstances
• Injuries
• Timing
How Similar is Similar?
17
• Planes: Sheesdy v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77919 (D.S.D. Oct. 24, 2006)
• Buses: Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2007)
• Automobiles: Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 2007 Fl. App. LEXIS 17738 (Nov. 7, 2007)
Potential Sources of Other Similar Incident Evidence
18
• Government reports • Recalls • Customer complaints (informal to formal) • Other lawsuits • Incident reports • Adverse event reports • Internal investigations or testing/company records • Warranty claims
Potential Sources of Other Similar Incident Evidence
19
• Not all evidence created equal
• Discovery observations
Methods of Proof, Part 1
20
- Mini-trials
- Documents
- Hearsay?
Methods of Proof, Part 2
21
- Experts
- Experiments
- Discovery
- Pending Lawsuits?
Rule 403
22
• Probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice
• Confusion
• Waste of time
Rule 404(b)
23
• No “character” evidence
• Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts
• Permitted uses: “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident”
Non-Occurrence of Other Similar Incidents
24
• Mirror? • absence of the defect or condition alleged • lack of a causal relationship between the injury and the defect or
condition charged • nonexistence of an unduly dangerous situation • want of knowledge (or of grounds to realize) the danger
Non-Occurrence of Other Similar Incidents
25
• Does absence of evidence = absence of incidents?
• E.g., Forrest v. Beloit Corp., 424 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2005)
Non-Occurrence of Other Similar Incidents
26
• Evolving approaches
• Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., 933 F. Supp. 2d 1111,
1143–46 (N.D. Iowa 2013)