Wood v. Morbark Industries

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1995 · Evidence

70 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 1995)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 407subsequent remedial measuresstrict products liabilitydesign defectimpeachmentfeasibilityopened the door

Facts

Wood sued Morbark for the death of her husband, who was pulled into a Morbark wood chipper with a seventeen-inch infeed chute. Before trial, the district court granted Morbark's motion in limine excluding evidence that Morbark later lengthened the chute, because Morbark did not contest feasibility. At trial, however, Morbark's counsel suggested in opening and through witness examination that the same machine design was still being used by the city and that the Army Corps of Engineers had ordered machines just like the one involved in the accident. The court initially allowed limited rebuttal testimony that the city's machine had been modified, but later instructed the jury to disregard any comments, questions, or answers concerning any additional or extra length chute after Wood's counsel tried to impeach Morbark's president, who called the seventeen-inch chute the "safest length chute" possible.

Issue

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 407 apply to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures in a strict products liability design defect case, and if so, did the district court err by preventing and effectively nullifying impeachment use of such evidence after Morbark opened the door?

Rule

Rule 407 applies in strict products liability cases alleging that a product design was unreasonably dangerous, so evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove defect or culpable conduct. But such evidence may be admitted for an allowed purpose under Rule 407, including impeachment, especially when the opposing party opens the door by creating a misleading impression or by describing the design in superlative safety terms.

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 a federal diversity action in Alabama, Nora Ellison sues Red Mesa Lifts, a fictional manufacturer, alleging that a warehouse platform was defectively designed because its entry gate was unreasonably dangerous. After the accident, Red Mesa redesigned the gate latch. Red Mesa stipulates before trial that a different latch was feasible, and Nora offers the redesign evidence only to show the original design was defective.

How should the court rule on the evidence of the post-accident redesign?

Explanation. Rule 407 applies in strict products liability design defect cases. Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible when offered to prove the product was defective or the defendant engaged in culpable conduct. A stipulation on feasibility does not make the evidence admissible; if anything, it removes one possible permitted purpose.