## Facts

- John F. Loughan, a tire mechanic in Florida, was injured when a component of a Firestone three-part multi-piece truck rim assembly separated with explosive force and struck his head during remounting work.
- Firestone manufactured two multi-piece rim systems (including different rim bases, side rings, and lock rings) that were not intended to be interchangeable.
- Over time, industry practice led to “mismatches,” where rings from one line were combined with rim bases from the other; a mismatch was involved in the accident.
- Loughan claimed the rim components were serviceable and properly reassembled and that the separation resulted from an inherent design instability (negligence and strict liability).
- Firestone argued the separation resulted from nonserviceability or improper reassembly and that mismatch risks were well known in the trade, including to Loughan as an experienced mechanic.
- At trial, Firestone introduced testimony that Loughan routinely drank beer while working (including evidence he carried a cooler and had previously been fired over on-the-job drinking) to support comparative negligence and assumption of risk.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of Loughan’s on-the-job drinking (and related workplace conduct) as habit evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406.
2. Whether the district court properly directed a verdict for Firestone on Loughan’s failure-to-warn theory concerning mismatch dangers.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Loughan leave to amend the complaint late in the case to add a theory that the entire rim system was defective.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in taxing and denying certain litigation costs, including expert-related costs.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Firestone in full.
- The court held the drinking evidence was admissible as Rule 406 habit evidence because it showed a regular, repeated practice over an extended period, not merely sporadic misconduct.
- The court affirmed the directed verdict on failure to warn because the mismatch danger was known in the industry and to Loughan as an experienced mechanic; Firestone had no duty to warn him of a risk already known to him.
- The court held denial of leave to amend was within the district court’s discretion given the late request and resulting prejudice to Firestone.
- The court upheld the district court’s cost rulings as within its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 406 permits proof of habit—conduct reflecting a regular response to a repeated, specific situation—to support an inference that the person acted in conformity with that habit on the occasion in dispute.
- Trial courts have substantial discretion to determine whether proffered conduct is sufficiently regular and specific to qualify as habit rather than impermissible character evidence.
- In products-liability failure-to-warn claims, a manufacturer generally has no duty to warn a user of risks that are open and obvious or already known to the user, including experienced professionals in a specialized trade.
- Leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 may be denied for undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Taxation and allocation of costs are committed to the district court’s discretion and are reversed only for clear abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a defense verdict in a diversity products-liability action arising from a mismatched multi-piece rim assembly, holding that evidence of routine on-the-job drinking was admissible as habit under Rule 406, that no duty to warn existed where the experienced plaintiff knew the mismatch risk, and that the district court acted within its discretion in denying a late amendment and in taxing costs.


Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1985)