Chism v. CNH AMERICA LLC
638 F.3d 637
8th Cir.2011Background
- Chism lost his left arm in August 2007 while operating a 1998 New Holland Model 648 hay baler with a PTO.
- He stood on a platform above the twine box when hay moved; his arm became entangled in the pinch point.
- CNH defended that the baler’s design and warnings were adequate and the injury resulted from Chism’s operation.
- The case was tried to a jury in March 2010; CNH obtained a verdict for defense.
- Chism challenged six district court evidentiary rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defense verdicts in other cases | Chism argues prior verdicts were unfairly prejudicial. | CNH argues prior verdicts are probative and not unfairly prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; district court’s conditional admission was proper. |
| Exclusion of other incidents as not substantially similar | Other incidents show notice, design defect, and lack of warning. | Incidents not substantially similar; risk of confusing the issues. | District court did not abuse discretion; not substantially similar enough. |
| Proximity evidence about pinch point and tire | Evidence of tire proximity and standard guarding is probative. | Evidence is minimally probative and confusing. | Exclusion affirmed; evidence would unduly confuse the issues. |
| Total number of Series 6 balers manufactured | Absence of accidents could negate defect; helps context. | Provides context for jurors about exposure. | Within trial court’s discretion to admit for context. |
| Exclusion of post-model photographs and Engineering Code of Ethics testimony | Post-model designs show operator access and Code supports safety duty. | Evidence irrelevant and prejudicial; no legal force to Code. | Exclusion affirmed; evidence would be prejudicial and tangential. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 820 F.2d 928 (8th Cir. 1987) (admissibility of similar-incident evidence contextually approved)
- Wright v. Ark. & Mo. R.R., 574 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2009) (opening statement can open door to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R., 201 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2000) (absence of other incidents may be admissible for various purposes)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gill, 352 Ark. 240, 100 S.W.3d 715 (Ark. 2003) (absence of prior accidents not defeat of liability; admissibility context)
- Airco, Inc. v. Simmons First Nat'l Bank, 638 S.W.2d 660 (Ark. 1982) (absence of prior accidents not defeat of punitive damages; context for evidence)