## Facts

- Mark Cyr, an employee at a construction site, was struck and seriously injured when a bulldozer backed into him.
- J.I. Case Co. manufactured the bulldozer with a back-up alarm available as optional equipment.
- Case sold the bulldozer without a back-up alarm to dealer Harold D. Smith & Sons, Inc., which sold it to Cyr’s employer.
- Cyr sued the manufacturer and dealer under strict products liability and negligence theories, alleging the bulldozer was defective or unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a back-up alarm.
- Causation was heavily disputed, including whether Cyr’s failure to notice the bulldozer backing up broke or affected the causal chain.
- At trial, defendants introduced evidence that Cyr received workers’ compensation benefits after the accident.
- The trial court excluded evidence that (after the accident) Case made back-up alarms standard equipment and Cyr’s employer installed an alarm on the bulldozer, treating the evidence as subsequent remedial measures.
- The jury returned verdicts for both defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting evidence that Cyr received workers’ compensation benefits was an abuse of discretion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
2. Whether the trial court improperly excluded certain lay opinion and expert testimony relevant to the bulldozer’s operation, the need for a back-up alarm, and causation.
3. Whether evidence of post-accident addition or standardization of back-up alarms was properly excluded as subsequent remedial measures, and if so, whether it could be admitted for a limited permissible purpose (e.g., feasibility) if genuinely disputed.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the defense judgments and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Cyr’s workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court concluded the error was not harmless, given the importance of causation and the potential for the evidence to affect the jury’s determinations.
- The court addressed other evidentiary questions to guide proceedings on remand, including lay/expert opinion testimony and analysis of subsequent remedial measures.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 403-type balancing, evidence with minimal probative value must be excluded when it presents a substantial danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
- Evidence that a plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits generally has little probative value on disability or credibility absent a specific basis (such as fraud) linking the benefits to a material disputed issue.
- Collateral-source evidence can unfairly influence jurors by suggesting “double recovery” or inviting improper consideration of benefits in liability or damages determinations; limiting instructions may not cure the prejudice if they are confusing or invite misuse.
- Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible when offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or defect, but may be admissible for another purpose (such as feasibility, control, or impeachment) when that purpose is legitimate and actually contested.
- Trial courts have discretion over evidentiary rulings, but appellate courts will reverse where the balancing of probative value and prejudice is unreasonable and affects the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because admitting workers’ compensation benefits evidence created a substantial risk of juror confusion and unfair prejudice that outweighed any slight probative value, and the error could have influenced the outcome in a closely contested causation case.


Cyr v. J.I. Case Co., 652 A.2d 685 (N.H. 1994)