Cyr v. J. I. Case Co.
New Hampshire Supreme Court
652 A.2d 685 (1994)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
J. I. Case Company (Case) (defendant) manufactured bulldozers with optional backup-motion alarms. Case sold a bulldozer that did not have a backup-motion alarm to Harold D. Smith & Sons, Inc. (Smith) (defendant), and Smith sold it to a construction company. Mark Cyr (plaintiff) worked for the construction company, and his leg was crushed when the bulldozer backed into him. Cyr brought negligence and strict-liability claims against Case and Smith, arguing that the bulldozer should have had a backup-motion alarm. After Cyr’s accident, Case made backup-motion alarms standard equipment for that type of bulldozer, and the construction company installed a backup-motion alarm on the bulldozer that had hit Cyr. Cyr wanted to introduce evidence showing that Case and the construction company had added backup-motion alarms after the accident. The trial court determined that these actions were subsequent remedial measures and excluded the evidence under Rule of Evidence 407. The jury found that Case and Smith were not liable for Cyr’s injuries. Cyr appealed, arguing that evidence of the newly added backup-motion alarms should have been admitted to help him prove his strict-liability claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
