## Facts

- A tractor-trailer driven by Ralph Earle struck a vehicle driven by Fernandez.
- The tractor-trailer was owned by Transport Designs, Inc. (TDI).
- Fernandez sued Earle and TDI seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the collision.
- Before trial, Fernandez sought to introduce evidence that TDI did not investigate the accident after it occurred.
- Fernandez also sought to introduce testimony (through a retained witness) that TDI’s failure to investigate this accident was indicative of a common practice by TDI of failing to follow its own policies, federal regulations, and industry standard practices.
- Earle and TDI moved to exclude the evidence and testimony, arguing it amounted to impermissible character (propensity) evidence barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that TDI failed to investigate the accident, and testimony framing that failure as part of TDI’s general practice of noncompliance, is inadmissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

## Decision

- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division) granted the defendants’ motion to exclude the challenged evidence and related testimony.
- The court concluded that using TDI’s post-accident failure to investigate, together with “common practice” testimony, invited an improper inference that TDI has a noncompliant character and therefore acted in conformity with that character in connection with the collision.
- The court also rejected the attempt to present the same theory through opinion testimony, explaining that a witness’s opinion cannot be used to introduce propensity-based “other acts” reasoning barred by Rule 404(b).
- The court noted that the challenged proof risked distracting the jury from the facts of the collision and steering the case toward a generalized assessment of TDI’s corporate behavior, supporting exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) bars evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when offered to prove a person’s character to show action in conformity on a particular occasion.
- Rule 404(b) applies to corporate parties as well as individuals; a plaintiff may not use “pattern” evidence to argue the company is generally careless and therefore must have been careless in the event at issue.
- Other-acts evidence may be admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) if offered for a non-propensity purpose (such as motive, knowledge, or absence of mistake) and if the proponent articulates a genuine link to that purpose beyond “they usually do this.”
- Post-incident conduct that is offered mainly to show a company’s general safety culture or general noncompliance can be excluded where its relevance depends on propensity reasoning.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or wasting time—especially where the evidence would shift the trial toward collateral disputes about generalized practices rather than the collision itself.

## Conclusion

Fernandez v. Transport Designs, Inc. is a trucking-collision case in which the court, ruling on a pretrial motion, excluded evidence that the carrier did not investigate the crash and excluded related testimony that characterized the noninvestigation as part of the carrier’s common practice of disregarding policies and regulations, holding that the proffer relied on forbidden propensity reasoning under Rule 404(b) and would risk confusing the issues at trial.


Fernandez v. Transport Designs, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131287 (2017)