The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation

By Dorn, Elbert S.; Williams, Burl F. | Defense Counsel Journal, October 2013 | Go to article overview

The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation


Dorn, Elbert S., Williams, Burl F., Defense Counsel Journal


This article originally appeared in the July 2013 Product Liability Committee newsletter.

A CRUCIAL ISSUE in the successful defense of a product liability case is the exclusion of other incidents and accidents involving products of the manufacturer. In old school parlance, prior incidents were often referred to as "other similar incidents" or "OSI," a term which should be avoided because it presupposes similarity which does not necessarily exist. The specter of other incidents, if not addressed consistently and aggressively throughout the course of the litigation, can transform an otherwise defensible case into a problematic one.

The primary defense tool for excluding other incident evidence is the "substantial similarity" standard. While the concept of "substantial similarity" is not novel, this article surveys recent case law from various jurisdictions which reinforce this important evidentiary standard. (1) When effectively applied, the "substantial similarity" test serves as a potent legal basis to resist and limit discovery, to exclude opposing experts, to support motions in limine, and to substantiate exclusion of evidence and even dismissal of claims at trial. Left unchallenged, evidence of other incidents has the real potential to distract the fact finder from proper legal determinations by injecting unrelated and prejudicial facts and allegations of defect which have not withstood proper evidentiary scrutiny. The following summary provides current case law to buttress the assault on other incident evidence.

In Graves v. CAS Medical Systems, (2) the South Carolina Supreme Court applied the substantial similarity test in affirming the exclusion of three expert witnesses under South Carolina's expert evidence standard. Graves is instructive in this regard because it demonstrates that the substantial similarity rule can be invoked not only to exclude other incident evidence itself but also to challenge expert testimony that relies on such evidence.

Six month-old India Graves died while being monitored by a CAS Medical System product. (3) Her parents, Kareem and Tara Graves, filed a product liability lawsuit against CAS, alleging that "the monitor was defectively designed and failed to alert them when India's heart rate and breathing slowed." (4) India Graves was a triplet, born premature, and that condition required her hospitalization for 6 weeks. When she was released, the treating physician, as a precaution, instructed the Graves to use the CAS product to monitor the infant's breathing and heart rates. The product included a loud alarm that would sound if the infant were to stop breathing or have any major fluctuations in heart rate. (5) The product incorporated many intricate features and redundant safety measures, including a backup alarm along with a recording system that kept a log of alarm soundings. India died in her sleep while she was hooked up to the system, but, according to the Graves, the alarm never sounded. (6) Contrary to that allegation, the product's recording system reported that the alarm did sound. (7)

The Graves' claims centered on a software design defect theory involving "spaghetti code," defined as a condition when computer code becomes unstructured and creates "a rather tangled mess." (8) Three experts were utilized to support the Graves' theory, initially identifying three potential causes: hardware error, software error, and complaint error. (9) All three experts opined that software error was deemed the most probable cause after the possibilities of hardware and complaint error were ruled out by them. (10) CAS moved to exclude all three experts, contending that their testimony was not reliable because each relied on reports of other alleged failures to support their conclusion that software error was the cause. (11) The trial court excluded the three experts and granted summary judgment.

The Graves court began its exclusion analysis by acknowledging that an expert, in certain circumstances, can base his conclusion on a form of differential diagnosis--that is, by "eliminating the likely causes until the most probable one is isolated. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.