## Facts

- Evenflo manufactured the “On My Way” (OMW) rear-facing infant child safety seat, designed for use with or without a detachable base; without the base, the vehicle belt engaged open, U-shaped belt hooks.
- FMVSS 213 required compliance testing but did not require side-impact, rear-impact, or rollover testing.
- Testing and incidents associated with the OMW line showed seat/belt-path failures and ejection risk attributed to the open belt-hook design.
- Evenflo initiated a recall/corrective action for an earlier OMW model (206) after reporting it did not meet FMVSS 213 requirements and retrofitted/rebranded seats as model 207x for retail shipment.
- Jessica Malcolm received an OMW seat, contacted Evenflo about safety and recall status, and was told it was safe and not subject to recall.
- During a rollover crash, the OMW seat’s left belt hook broke, the seat was ejected from the vehicle, and the infant remained strapped in but suffered fatal brain injuries.
- The Malcolms sued in strict products liability, alleging defective design (open belt-hook design and lack of EPS padding) and feasible safer alternatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that the OMW model at issue complied with FMVSS 213 when deciding compensatory damages in a design-defect strict-liability case.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of recall and test failures involving a different OMW model to prove defect and notice.
3. Whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings created unfair asymmetry by permitting plaintiffs to use noncompliance/recall evidence while barring the manufacturer’s compliance evidence.
4. Whether FMVSS 213 compliance evidence is relevant to punitive damages, including the defendant’s state of mind.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The trial court erred by categorically excluding FMVSS 213 compliance evidence on compensatory damages; compliance evidence was relevant and admissible, though not dispositive.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of recall and test failures involving a different model where sufficiently related to the same design features and offered for limited purposes such as notice and defect context, subject to limiting instructions.
- The evidentiary approach was unfairly imbalanced; if plaintiffs may introduce evidence of regulatory problems and recall history, the defendant must be allowed to offer regulatory compliance evidence for a complete presentation.
- Excluding FMVSS 213 compliance evidence in the punitive-damages context was error because such evidence bears on whether the defendant acted with the culpability required for punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- In design-defect strict liability, compliance with applicable safety regulations is relevant evidence that the product may not be unreasonably dangerous, but it does not conclusively establish absence of defect.
- Trial courts may not impose a blanket exclusion of relevant regulatory compliance evidence when it bears on defect and reasonableness.
- Evidence of other incidents, testing failures, and recalls involving related models may be admissible to show defect, notice, and design history when there is sufficient similarity and the jury is instructed on limited use.
- Evidentiary rulings should be internally consistent and not create one-sided presentations that distort the jury’s evaluation of defect and causation.
- Regulatory compliance evidence may be relevant to punitive damages because it informs the assessment of the defendant’s mental state and culpability, even without providing immunity from liability.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court required further proceedings because excluding FMVSS 213 compliance evidence improperly limited the defense on compensatory and punitive damages, while allowing related recall and testing evidence for notice and defect context with appropriate constraints.


Malcolm v. Evenflo Co., 217 P.3d 514 (Mont. 2009)