## Facts

- Robert Mischalski, an undocumented immigrant working as a mechanic, replaced an air-suspension component on a 1990 Lincoln Town Car owned by Piotr Mieczkowski.
- He raised the vehicle using a Ford tire jack rather than hydraulic lifts.
- The jack allegedly collapsed due to stripped internal threads, causing the car to fall and injure him.
- Mischalski sued Ford Motor Company for products liability (defective design/manufacture) and failure to warn regarding the jack.
- Ford sought to raise Mischalski’s immigration status, allegedly unauthorized/off-the-books work, and alleged failure to file tax returns to limit recovery and to impeach credibility.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff’s undocumented immigration status and related allegedly unlawful employment can constitute an affirmative defense barring or limiting compensatory or future damages in a products-liability tort action.
2. Whether evidence of undocumented status and allegedly unlawful employment is admissible to limit damages or otherwise affect liability.
3. Whether evidence of failure to file tax returns is admissible to impeach the plaintiff’s credibility.

## Decision

- Ford’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense based on immigration status and alleged illegal conduct was denied.
- Ford’s request in limine to introduce immigration-status and unlawful-employment evidence to bar or limit damages was denied.
- Ford was permitted to cross-examine Mischalski about failing to file tax returns, solely for impeachment of credibility.

## Legal Principles

- Undocumented immigration status does not bar access to federal courts or recovery of compensatory damages for personal injury.
- A tort “illegality” defense requires that the unlawful conduct be a direct, proximate cause of the injury; collateral illegality does not bar recovery.
- Evidence may be excluded where its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value, particularly when it risks diverting the jury from defect and causation questions.
- Failure to file tax returns may be probative of a witness’s truthfulness and may be used for limited credibility impeachment, not as a general damages-limiting theory.

## Conclusion

The court refused to allow Ford to transform the plaintiff’s undocumented status and alleged unauthorized work into a broad defense or damages limitation in a products-liability case, excluded immigration-status evidence as unduly prejudicial, and allowed only narrow impeachment through cross-examination about tax-return nonfiling.


Mischalski v. Ford Motor Co., 935 F. Supp. 203 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)