## Facts

- Forrest A. Flaminio bought a Honda Gold Wing motorcycle manufactured by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and distributed in the U.S. by American Honda Motor Co.
- The motorcycle was shipped partially assembled; final assembly and certain additions were performed by a local dealer.
- Three days after delivery, Flaminio rode at night after consuming “one or two drinks,” passed a car at an estimated 50–70 mph in a 50-mph zone, and rode with his feet on dealer-installed “highway pegs.”
- After feeling a vibration, Flaminio attempted to look at the front wheel while in a leaned-back posture, likely lifting off the seat; the motorcycle began wobbling, left the road, and crashed, leaving him paraplegic.
- Flaminio and his wife sued, alleging defective design (a dangerous wobble tendency) and failure to warn of that tendency.
- After the accident, the manufacturer modified the motorcycle by thickening certain struts; plaintiffs sought to admit this change as proof of a safer feasible design and for impeachment, but the trial court excluded it under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure-to-warn claim required a separate strict-liability jury instruction, rather than only a negligence-based warning instruction, under Wisconsin products liability law.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 407 governs admissibility of subsequent remedial measures in federal diversity cases and applies to strict-liability product claims.
3. Whether the post-accident design change was admissible under Rule 407’s feasibility or impeachment exceptions.
4. Whether the district court’s time limits and related trial-management rulings warranted a new trial due to prejudice.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for both defendants.
- Any omission of a separate strict-liability failure-to-warn instruction was, at most, harmless because the practical difference from negligence warnings law was minimal on the record presented.
- Rule 407 applied in federal court notwithstanding Wisconsin law and barred the post-accident design-change evidence when offered to prove defect or culpable conduct; the rule also applied to strict-liability theories.
- The feasibility exception did not apply because feasibility was not genuinely controverted, and the impeachment exception could not be used in a way that would effectively nullify Rule 407.
- The plaintiffs did not show that trial time limits or other management rulings prevented presentation of material evidence or affected the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- In federal court, Federal Rule of Evidence 407 is treated as a procedural evidentiary rule applicable in diversity cases.
- Rule 407’s exclusion of subsequent remedial measures extends to strict-liability product claims, not only negligence, because the policy of encouraging safety improvements would otherwise be undermined.
- Rule 407’s feasibility exception requires that feasibility be genuinely controverted; a general dispute about product safety does not automatically place feasibility in issue.
- The impeachment exception to Rule 407 is limited; subsequent remedial measures are not admissible merely because they could be framed as contradicting a defendant’s assertion of due care.
- Under Wisconsin comparative negligence, a plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the negligence of the party against whom recovery is sought.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense judgment where the jury assigned greater fault to the plaintiff and held that, in federal diversity product litigation, Rule 407 generally bars post-accident design changes offered to prove defect or blame, with narrow room for feasibility or impeachment use, and that any warning-instruction error was harmless on these facts.


Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1984)