Grenada Steel Industries, Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983 · Evidence

695 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1983)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceSubsequent remedial measuresProducts liabilitySufficiency of the evidenceFRE 407strict liabilityfeasibilitycontroverted

Facts

A fire and explosion occurred at Grenada Steel's plant in 1977, and Grenada Steel claimed that acetylene gas leaked through a valve on a gas cylinder sold by Alabama Oxygen and manufactured by SSC. The valve had been manufactured in 1972 under a design based on a 1965 patent, supplied in 1973, and this type of valve was no longer being marketed by 1977 because SSC had halted production in 1974. At trial, Grenada Steel sought to introduce evidence that after the fire SSC manufactured a differently designed valve and that Rego, a competitor, later designed and marketed an alternative acetylene valve. The district court excluded that evidence, and the jury found for the defendants.

Issue

Whether, in a strict products liability suit, the district court erred in excluding evidence of post-accident design changes by the defendant and by a third-party manufacturer. If not, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.

Rule

Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to strict products liability cases as well as negligence cases. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible on feasibility only if feasibility is actually controverted by the defendant, not merely because feasibility is generally relevant in design-defect litigation. Evidence of a later alternative design by a third party is properly excluded when it does not bear on whether the product was reasonably safe at the time of manufacture and poses risks of confusion or unfair prejudice.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Kim was injured in Tulsa when a portable pressure sprayer allegedly burst because of a defect in its release cap. She sued the manufacturer on a strict products liability theory only, and sought to introduce evidence that six months after the accident the manufacturer redesigned the cap to vent pressure more gradually.

Should the court admit the redesign evidence to prove the product was defective?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 407 applies to strict liability cases as well as negligence cases. Evidence of a manufacturer's post-accident design change is therefore inadmissible when offered to prove the earlier product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. The court emphasized both the limited relevance of later changes to the product's condition at the time of manufacture and the risk of jury confusion.