## Facts

- Ginger Wood, a City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida employee, was killed on February 2, 1989, while operating a Morbark “Eeger Beever” wood chipper.
- The chipper’s infeed chute was 17 inches long; a coworker heard an unusual sound and then saw Wood’s body in the infeed chute.
- Wood suffered fatal injuries when the chipper’s knives contacted him, removing his head, arms, and upper torso.
- Ruby Wood, as personal representative of Wood’s estate, sued Morbark Industries, Inc., and Morbark Mississippi, Inc., alleging defective design, including that the infeed chute was too short to protect operators.
- After the accident, Morbark lengthened the infeed chute, prompting disputes over admissibility of that change under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
- Before trial, the district court granted a motion in limine excluding evidence of the post-accident design change.
- At trial, Morbark’s counsel and a company witness suggested the 17-inch chute was the safest available and continued to be used by government purchasers.
- Plaintiff sought to use the post-accident chute-lengthening to impeach those safety-related claims and to address feasibility; the district court ultimately instructed the jury to disregard remedial-measures testimony and maintained exclusion.
- The jury found for Morbark, and the district court denied Wood’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures in strict products liability actions.
2. If Rule 407 applies, whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of Morbark’s post-accident chute-lengthening when offered to impeach claims implying the original design was the safest and remained standard.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held that Rule 407 applies in strict products liability cases.
- The court held that the district court erred by preventing use of the post-accident design change for impeachment after Morbark’s trial presentation created a misleading impression about safety and design alternatives.
- The court found the error was not harmless because chute length and operator protection were central to liability and the exclusion impaired plaintiff’s ability to counter the defense theory.
- The court reversed the denial of a new trial and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 407 generally bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove a defect, negligence, or other fault, including in strict products liability actions.
- Rule 407’s exceptions remain available in products cases, including admission for impeachment and for feasibility of precautionary measures when feasibility is genuinely controverted.
- A party may “open the door” to impeachment with subsequent-remedial-measure evidence by presenting testimony or argument that creates a misleading impression about product safety or the availability of safer designs.
- When exclusion of admissible impeachment evidence affects substantial rights in a case where the disputed design feature is central, the error warrants a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Rule 407 applies to strict products liability claims but required a new trial because Morbark’s safety-themed presentation permitted impeachment with evidence that it later lengthened the chipper’s infeed chute, and excluding that impeachment evidence was prejudicial.


Wood v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 70 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 1995)