## Facts

- Patricia J. McInnis was riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle on Route 146A in North Smithfield, Rhode Island, when a car driven by Florence Poirier turned left into the motorcycle.
- After the collision, the motorcycle “fishtailed” and then fell on its side.
- McInnis suffered an amputation injury to her left leg; she alleged the injury occurred when the motorcycle fell and the clutch/motor housing shattered, exposing her leg to moving parts.
- McInnis sued A.M.F., Inc. and Harley-Davidson in products liability, claiming the clutch (motor) housing was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous and that the defect proximately caused the amputation.
- Defendants argued the amputation was caused by the automobile collision rather than any design defect.
- Before trial, McInnis settled with Poirier for $60,000 and executed a release.
- At trial, the court admitted (1) evidence of McInnis’s alcohol consumption before the accident and (2) evidence of the Poirier settlement and its amount; the jury returned a verdict for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 408 barred admission of McInnis’s settlement and release with Poirier (including the $60,000 amount) when offered to support an inference about causation.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of McInnis’s pre-accident alcohol consumption under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3. Whether other trial rulings and the denial of defendants’ motion for a directed verdict warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The judgment for defendants was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial.
- The district court erred by admitting evidence of McInnis’s settlement with Poirier to suggest the cause of her injury; the error was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of McInnis’s alcohol consumption.
- The court rejected McInnis’s remaining claims of trial error and rejected defendants’ cross-appeal challenging denial of a directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 408 prohibits admitting compromise settlements to prove or disprove liability or the validity/amount of a claim, and it also bars uses that invite the same inference indirectly (including using settlement evidence to imply causation).
- A settlement with a third party may not be introduced to support an inference that the settling party believed the third party caused the injury, where that inference bears on causation and responsibility.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 only if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- When improperly admitted settlement evidence is emphasized on a central disputed issue (such as causation), the resulting prejudice is not harmless and warrants a new trial.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ordered a new trial because admitting the plaintiff’s third-party settlement (and its amount) to suggest who caused the amputation violated Rule 408 and likely affected the verdict, while upholding the trial court’s admission of alcohol-consumption evidence and other challenged rulings.


McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc., 765 F.2d 240 (1st Cir. 1985)