|
Randall
v. Warnaco, Inc., Hirsch-Weis Division, 677 F.2d 1226 (8th
Cir. 1982)
Author: Anonymous
Facts:
Mrs. Randall was seriously burned while camping with a friend.
Her friend had modified the tent to accommodate a small
stove. They would use small twigs and charcoal fluid,
but when they ran out of charcoal fluid, they began to use
camping fuel to start the fires inside the stove. After the
fire had gone out one night, Randal drizzled some fuel onto a
log, and as she began to insert it into the stove it ignited both
herself and the tent.
Issue:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
video-tape evidence showing the absorption properties of the
wood, by duplicating the accident scene?
Holding:
No, not to show the absorption properties of wood obtained from
the same location.
Procedure:
Action against tent manufacturer for injuries under strict
liability, negligence, and breach of warranty theories-failure to
notice flammability, and failure to provide second exit. Pl
dropped breach of warranty claim. D Ct dismissed claim of
negligence, and special jury verdict for Df on the strict
liability claim.
Rule:
A court may properly admit experimental evidence if the tests
were conducted under conditions substantially similar to the
actual conditions. Admissibility does not depend on perfect
identity between actual and experimental conditions.
Rationale:
As an experiment to demonstrate the absorption properties of the
wooden logs, the evidence was properly admissible and relevant to
support the Df’s theory that the injuries had occurred as a
result of the Pl’s actions–the burns occurred when fuel
ran off the log onto the floor of the tent. The
experimental evidence may have served the permissible purpose of
demonstrating certain physical properties, but it is likely to
have served an impermissible purpose of reenacting the accident
for the jury. In duplicating the accident scene, the Df
sought to prove more than the physical properties of the wood; it
portrayed to the jury that on the night in question the Pl, like
the five actresses, poured fuel on herself and the tent.
The admission of this evidence could be deemed unduly
prejudicial, but the appellants failed to object on this ground.
Pl
A: The court admitted the video-taped evidence without proper
foundation.
Df
A: The evidence depicted similar occurrence evidence that was
relevant to the Df’s claim–absorption properties of the
wood.
|
