Product Defect Case Series
Jacobson v. Manfredi by Manfredi, 100 Nev. 226, 679 P.2d 251 (1984).
Product: Liquid Solder
Injury: Damage requiring removal of stomach and upper and lower stomach valves.
Mechanism of Injury: Two year old drank liquid solder.
Nature of Defect:
Jury Verdict:
Issue on appeal:
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Case Quotes:
At trial, respondents introduced the new container and the circular into evidence. NRS 48.095, patterned after Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, unless such evidence is offered to prove another purpose such as feasibility of precautionary measures.3 In this case the feasibility exception applies because Rotometals contested the utility and safety provided by the original container and labels versus the subsequent product container and labels.
Whether something is feasible relates not only to actual possibility of operation, and its cost and convenience, but also to its ultimate utility and success in its intended performance. That is to say, “feasible” means not only “possible,” but also means “capable of being ... utilized, or dealt with successfully.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 831 (unabridged ed. 1967); see Black's *232 Law Dictionary 549 (5th ed. 1979) (“reasonable assurance of success.”).
Anderson v. Malloy, 700 F.2d 1208, 1213 (8th Cir.1983). We therefore hold that admission of the evidence regarding subsequent remedial product changes was within the district court's discretion.
Jacobson v. Manfredi by Manfredi, 100 Nev. 226, 231–32, 679 P.2d 251, 254–55 (1984)
Regarding strict products liability, the jury was instructed that “no liability follows an injury resulting from abnormal or unintended use.” Even if the jury found the product unreasonably dangerous, it may have found that John Manfredi's conduct constituted abnormal or unintended use resulting in no liability on the part of Rotometals. As Brenda was not using the product and did not leave it within Justin's reach, the jury again consistently could have found she was entitled to recover on a strict products liability theory. While Manfredi convincingly argues that his conduct is not the sort of misuse which bars recovery on strict products liability claims, he failed to request that the jury be instructed concerning the correct definition of “misuse” in the context of the instant case. While respondents and the district court may have understood that Manfredi should not have been barred by his negligence from recovering under a strict liability cause of action, it was possible for the jury to conclude otherwise based on its instructions. Manfredi, therefore, has failed to demonstrate that it would have been “impossible” for the jury to have reached its verdict that he was not entitled to recover against the appellant. Weaver Brothers, Ltd. v. Misskelley, 98 Nev. 232, 234, 645 P.2d 438, 439 (1982). The district court's order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict is, therefore, vacated, and the judgment upon the jury verdict denying John Manfredi any recovery is reinstated. Having made this determination, we need not reach Rotometals' other contentions regarding John Manfredi's case.
Jacobson v. Manfredi by Manfredi, 100 Nev. 226, 235–36, 679 P.2d 251, 257 (1984)
