Cathy Morris v. Dorma Automatics Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-03267-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999168645]. [13-1155]

Cathy Morris v. Dorma Automatics Incorporated

Appeal: 13-1155

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/08/2013

Doc. 404573741

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1155
CATHY MORRIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DORMA AUTOMATICS INCORPORATED; CAROLINA DOOR CONTROLS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
KMART CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:09-cv-03267-DCN)

Submitted:

June 21, 2013

Decided:

August 8, 2013

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Kevin Holmes, THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert H. Hood, James B. Hood,
T. Happel Scurry, Deborah Harrison Sheffield, HOOD LAW FIRM,
LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Appeal: 13-1155

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Cathy Morris appeals from the district court’s
entry

of

summary

Automatics,
(“CDC”).

Inc.

judgment

(“Dorma”)

in

favor

and

of

Carolina

defendants

Door

Dorma

Controls,

Inc.

Morris posits a single assignment of error in her

opening brief, that is, whether the court incorrectly excluded
certain

of

her

Federal

Rules

trial
of

exhibits

Evidence.

pursuant

As

set

to

forth

Rule

407

below,

we

of

the

reject

Morris’s contention and affirm.
Morris

initiated

this

suit

seeking

compensation

for

injuries she suffered on June 24, 2008, when she became stuck in
a set of recently installed automatic doors at a Kmart Store
located in Charleston, South Carolina. 1
and

CDC

sought

to

exclude

from

Prior to trial, Dorma

evidence

seventeen

exhibits,

consisting of work orders, service reports, and warranty bills,
that Morris intended to offer in support of her manufacturing
defect claim.

The district court granted the motion in part,

excluding five documents under Federal Rule of Evidence 407. 2

1

For purposes of our review of the district court’s summary
judgment award, we recite the facts in the light most favorable
to Morris, as the nonmoving party.
See Durham v. Horner, 690
F.3d 183, 185 n.3 (4th Cir. 2012).
2

In its entirety, Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
provides that
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 13-1155

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/08/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

The district court’s evidentiary ruling, which we review
for abuse of discretion, is the sole issue identified in this
appeal.

See United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204, 209-10 (4th

Cir. 2010) (standard of review); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206,
217 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Appellant must raise in its opening brief
all

the

issues

it

wishes

the

court

to

address.”

(internal

quotation marks omitted)).
In

an

carefully

order

explaining

differentiated

its

between

ruling,
the

the

proffered

district
documents

court
that

described measures actually implemented after June 24, 2008, and
those documents that did not. 3

See J.A. 167-79. 4

Morris does

[w]hen measures are taken that would have made an
earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence
of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
•
•
•
•

negligence;
culpable conduct;
a defect in a product or its design; or
a need for a warning or instruction.

But the court may admit this evidence for another
purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed —
proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of
precautionary measures.
3

In her brief, Morris mischaracterizes the district court’s
evidentiary ruling as excluding evidence that the court did not,
in fact, exclude.
Compare Br. of Appellant 16 (challenging
exclusion of August 14, 2008 work order (J.A. 76) and August 15,
2008 service report (J.A. 77)); with J.A. 174-75 (explaining
that those documents would be admitted provided that Morris
established a proper foundation).

3

Appeal: 13-1155

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/08/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

not dispute that the evidence excluded by the district court
describes measures taken that would have made her injury less
likely to occur, or that she intended to offer such evidence to
prove a defect in the automatic doors.

Instead, she asks us to

craft

407,

a

judicial

exception

to

Rule

justifiable reason for doing so. 5
readily

conclude

discretion

by

that

the

applying

407

provides

no

In these circumstances, we

district

Rule

but

court

and

did

excluding

not
the

abuse

its

two

work

orders (J.A. 74, 78), two service reports (J.A. 75, 80), and one
warranty

bill

(J.A.

81)

as

evidence

of

subsequent

remedial

measures.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district
facts

court.

and

legal

We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

4

Citations herein to “J.A. ___” refer to the contents of
the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
5

Morris devotes a significant portion of her brief to the
alternative argument that the excluded evidence should have been
admitted for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendants’
expert witness, who would have opined that the doors were
functioning properly.
Correct or not, this contention is
irrelevant.
Even were it proper impeachment, the contested
evidence would not have been admissible for substantive
purposes, and it could not save what Morris’s trial counsel has
conceded to be otherwise insufficient evidence.
See J.A. 163
(stating that “in light of [the district court’s] evidentiary
rulings . . . I really do not have sufficient evidence to
establish a defective product case”).

4

Appeal: 13-1155

Doc: 22

materials

before

Filed: 08/08/2013

this

court

Pg: 5 of 5

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5