Raymond v. Raymond Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991 · Evidence

938 F.2d 1518 (1st Cir. 1991)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 407subsequent remedial measuresstrict liabilityRule 403third-party repairsdesign modificationsnewly discovered evidence

Facts

Roland Raymond was killed after the Model 75 sideloader he was operating collided with a protruding steel beam, which broke through a rear-corner support post and entered the operator's compartment. The plaintiff alleged the sideloader was defectively designed and manufactured because the post welds should have been fuller, the rear posts should have been connected by a backplate, and warnings were inadequate. At trial, the defendant presented evidence that the Model 75 met applicable ANSI specifications and that a backplate would not have prevented or mitigated the injuries. There was also undisputed evidence that the corner support post and welds on the machine involved did not conform to the defendant's original design specifications, and the record lacked repair evidence for the period from 1981 to 1985.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, particularly through its evidentiary rulings excluding evidence of later design modifications and third-party repairs, limiting expert testimony, and rejecting a claim of newly discovered evidence. The appeal also raised whether Rule 407 applies in strict products liability cases.

Rule

In the First Circuit, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to strict liability cases. Rule 407 excludes only measures taken after the accident giving rise to the suit, and it does not apply to repairs made by third parties rather than the defendant, though such evidence may still be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and a new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires that the evidence be newly discovered, not discoverable earlier with due diligence, not merely cumulative or impeaching, and likely to change the result.

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.

In Portland, Maine, Nora Kim sues Pine Harbor Lift Systems in strict products liability after a warehouse vehicle allegedly crushed her foot because its side guard was defectively designed. At trial, Nora offers evidence that after her accident, Pine Harbor redesigned the side guard on later units to reduce the risk of crushing injuries.

If Pine Harbor objects under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that Rule 407 applies in strict products liability cases. Evidence of measures taken after the accident by the defendant that would have made the event less likely is inadmissible to prove the product was defective or culpable conduct. The majority expressly adopted Rule 407 for strict liability cases to avoid unfair prejudice and encourage safety improvements.