Legal Opinion

McFarland v. Bruno Machinery Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1994No. 92-2236PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The primary issue in this case is whether the proscriptions of Evid.R. 407 apply to an action which alleges that a product is defective in design or formulation.2 More specifically, we are asked to determine whether the rule applies to a products liability claim grounded upon the theory of strict liability in tort.

Evid.R. 407, entitled “Subsequent Remedial Measures,” provides:

“When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Caprara v. Chrysler Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Ault v. International Harvester Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Grenada Steel Industries, Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Company, Inc. And Sherwood-Selpac CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
  4. D.L. Ex Rel. Friederichs v. HuebnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Chart Ex Rel. Sommer v. General Motors Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  2. Duchess v. Langston Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Minton v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Hyjek v. Anthony IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Hyjek v. Anthony IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1997

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API