Pukt v. Nexgrill Industries, Inc.

2016 DNH 157

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 6, 2016
• Docket: 14-cv-215-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph and Barbara Pukt

v. Civil No. 14-cv-215-JD Opinion No. 2016 DNH 157 Nexgrill Industries, Inc.

O R D E R

Joseph and Barbara Pukt brought suit against Nexgrill

Industries, Inc., alleging claims that arose from damage to

their property after a grill manufactured by Nexgrill caught

fire. Nexgrill moves, in limine, to preclude the Pukts from

offering evidence of other fires involving grills that it

manufactured. The Pukts object.

Background

In 2005, Joseph Pukt received a grill from his family as a

Father’s Day gift. The grill was manufactured by Nexgrill and

was one of its Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills. The 720-0036-HD-05

model grill was one of eight models that Nexgrill produced and

marketed in its 720 series. On September 8, 2005, all Model

720-0036-HD-05 grills were recalled because they contained a

defect that, in some instances, caused the fuel hose to come into contact with the grill’s firebox and melt, creating a

propane leak that could ignite.

On July 1, 2012, the Pukts’ grill caught fire shortly after

a family member finished cooking on it. The fire spread to the

Pukts’ deck and house, causing extensive damage. The Pukts

assert that the fire was caused by the same fuel hose defect

that resulted in the recall of all Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills.

The Pukts bring claims against Nexgrill for negligence and

strict liability.

The Pukts intend to introduce evidence at trial concerning

other fires involving grills manufactured by Nexgrill. Nexgrill

has moved, in limine, to preclude the Pukts from introducing

this evidence, arguing that the evidence is inadmissible because

the other fires are not substantially similar to the accident at

issue here. Nexgrill also contends that the evidence of other

accidents is inadmissible because it is unfairly prejudicial and

risks confusing the jury.

Standard of Review

To be admitted at trial, evidence must be relevant. Fed.

R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant when “it has any tendency to

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the

evidence” and the “fact is of consequence in determining the

2 action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. A court may exclude relevant

evidence, however, “if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue

delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative

evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

In products liability cases, courts employ a more

particularized inquiry into probative value when assessing

whether evidence of prior accidents is admissible. Trull v.

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 187 F.3d 88, 98 n.9 (1st Cir. 1999).

Under this standard, “[e]vidence of prior accidents is

admissible . . . only if the proponent of the evidence shows

that the accidents occurred under circumstances substantially

similar to those at issue in the case at bar.” Moulton v. Rival

Co., 116 F.3d 22, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McKinnon v.

Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir. 1981)). Substantial

similarity is “a function of the theory of the case” and,

therefore, does not require that the circumstances surrounding

the other accidents be identical. Moulton, 116 F.3d at 27.

When a party offers evidence of other accidents to show

notice or awareness of a dangerous condition, however, the

similarity requirement is relaxed. U.S. Aviation Underwriters,

Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131, 1147-48

3 (10th Cir. 2009); Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines,

Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 297–98 (6th Cir. 2007); Joy v. Bell

Helicopter Textron, Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1993);

Jenks v. Textron, Inc., No. 09-CV-205-JD, 2012 WL 2679495, at *6

(D.N.H. July 6, 2012). In such circumstances, “a lack of exact

similarity . . . will not cause exclusion provided the accident

was of a kind which should have served to warn the defendant.”

Bado-Santana v. Ford Motor Co., 482 F. Supp. 2d 197, 200 (D.P.R.

2007) (quoting Exum v. General Elec. Co., 819 F.2d 1158, 1162–63

(D.C. Cir. 1987)).

Discussion

Nexgrill moves to preclude the admission of the following

three categories of evidence of other accidents involving its

grills: (1) evidence of other fires involving Model 720-0036-HD-

05 grills (doc. no. 78); (2) evidence of customer returns of

Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills because of fires (doc. no. 81); and

(3) evidence of fires involving other models of Nexgrill grills

(doc. no. 82). The Pukts contend that each category is relevant

and admissible.

A. Other Fires Involving Model 720-0036-HD-05 Grills

Nexgrill moves generally to exclude evidence of other fires

involving Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills. The Pukts’ claims in

4 this case are based on the theory that the grill’s fuel hose

contacted the fire box and melted, thereby allowing gas to

escape and ignite. Based on findings by the Consumer Product

Safety Commission (the “CPSC”) and subsequent investigations,

the Pukts assert that the other fires involving Model 720-0036-

HD-05 grills are substantially similar to their grill fire.

The Pukts have attached to their objection a number of

exhibits containing evidence of other fires in Model 720-0035-

HD-05 grills.1 Several of these documents contain evidence of

fires that were caused under circumstances similar to those

alleged in the Pukts’ complaint. For example, one Nexgrill

incident report concerning a grill that caught fire notes that

“ALL HOSES MELTED.” Ex. D., Doc. 132-5 at 1. In a discussion

about that fire, a Nexgrill employee states that “the reason

grill caught on fire is regulator hose touched fire box (or

grease tray).” Id. at 5. Other documents in the Pukts’

submission contain similar evidence of fires caused by a hose

failure in Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills. See e.g., Doc. 132-5 at

25 (“Pictures showed that regulator hose melted.”), 61

1 The Pukts attached evidence of other fires in support of their objection to Nexgrill’s motion to exclude the evidence of customer returns. The Pukts, however, incorporated that objection into their objection to Nexgrill’s motion to exclude evidence of other fires involving Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills.

5 (referencing a burn caused “from hose melting”), 66 (“The hoses

melted . . . and started to catch fire!”); doc. no. 132-6 at 25

(“[T]he hoses caught on fire, customer was able to turn tank

off.”). Those incidents comport with the Pukts’ theory of the

case, namely, that the fuel hose in their Model 720-0035-HD-05

grill contacted the fire box and melted, causing the grill to

combust.

The Pukts have shown that at least some of the other fires

are substantially similar to the fire at issue in this case. As

such, the evidence of those fires is relevant to prove the

elements of the Pukts’ claims. Although Nexgrill asserts that

this evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence

403, it has provided no developed argument to show that the

evidence should be excluded on that basis.

B. RGA Reports

Nexgrill also moves to preclude the Pukts from introducing

specific evidence about fires involving Model 720-0036-HD-05

grills found in Nexgrill’s Return Good Authorization (“RGA”)

Reports. Home Depot was the retailer for Nexgrill’s Model 720-

0036-HD-05 grills. When Home Depot reported to Nexgrill that a

customer returned a grill, Nexgrill recorded the return in a RGA

Report and used the RGA Reports to track warranty claims.

6 The Pukts intend to introduce RGA Reports for a ten-month

period that show that 1812 Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills were

returned to Home Depot because the grills caught fire. The

Pukts contend that the Reports are relevant to show that the

grills we defective, that Nexgrill had notice of the defect,

that Nexgrill had a duty to warn of the defect, and that the

defect cause the fire in the Pukts’ grill. Nexgrill argues that

the RGA Reports are not admissible because the Pukts cannot show

that the reported fires were substantially similar to the fires

involving their grill and because the evidence is inadmissible

under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

i. Defect, Duty to Warn, Causation

The RGA Reports contain no evidence explaining the

circumstances of each reported grill fire. There are no details

in the reports that would support an inference that the reported

fires are substantially similar to the fire at the Pukts’ home.

Therefore, standing alone, the RGA Reports do not satisfy the

substantial similarity requirement.

2 The Pukts contend that the RGA Reports show that “at least 181 grills ‘caught fire' between January, 2005 and October, 2005.” Doc. no. 132-1. However, the spreadsheet that they attached to their objection to the motion to compel appears to report a total of 188 reported fires. See Doc. no. 132-3.

7 The Pukts contend, however, that the information on the RGA

Reports “correspond[] with many other items” and that “[l]ike

pieces to a puzzle” they have been able to link certain RGA

Reports to other evidence. In support, the Pukts cite a number

of incident reports and investigations in which customer returns

and correspondence are referenced. The Pukts, however, have not

shown any link between this evidence and any specific RGA Report

out of the 181 RGA Reports concerning fires in Model 720-0036-

HD-05 grills. As a result, the Pukts have not shown that the

RGA Reports are admissible to show a duty to warn, defect, or

causation.

ii. Notice

The Pukts also argue that the RGA Reports are admissible to

show that Nexgrill had notice of a defect in the Model 720-0036-

HD-05 grills. Nexgrill does not address the issue of notice

specifically but states that the RGA Reports should be excluded

under Rule 403 as being more unfairly prejudicial than probative

and likely to cause jury confusion.

The RGA Reports show that during a ten-month period long

before the Pukts’ grill caught fire, 181 people returned Model

720-0036-HD-05 grills to Home Depot because they caught fire.

The reports of those returns notified Nexgrill that 181 Model

720-036-HD-05 grills had caught fire. Those reported fires were

8 warnings to Nexgrill that the Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills

contained a dangerous condition. As Nexgrill admitted to the

CPSC, it began its initial investigation into the Model 720-

0036-HD-05 grills based in part on the RGA Reports. Therefore,

the RGA Reports are probative of the fact that Nexgrill had

notice of a potential defect in its Model 720-0036-HD-05 grills

before the Pukts’ grill caught fire.

To the extent those RGA Reports occurred before September

8, 2005, the date of Nexgrill’s recall, they are relevant to the

question of whether Nexgrill initiated the recall in a timely

manner. The probative value and relevance of RGA Reports after

September 8, 2005, must be determined at trial based on the

circumstances and evidence presented.

Nexgrill contends, however, that the RGA Reports should be

excluded under Rule 403. As the party opposing admission,

Nexgrill bears the burden of showing that the RGA Reports are

not admissible under Rule 403. United States v. Tse, 375 F.3d

148, 164 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Nexgrill does not identify any unfair prejudice or likely

confusion to the jury that substantially outweighs the RGA

Reports’ probative value in showing notice. Therefore, with

respect to notice before the September 8, 2005 recall, Nexgrill

has not met its burden, and the RGA Reports before that time are

9 not barred by Rule 403. As to the RGA Reports after September

8, 2005, the court will undertake as necessary any Rule 403

analysis at trial.

Accordingly, Nexgrill’s motion to preclude all evidence of

RGA Reports is denied to the extent that such evidence is used

to prove notice of a defect.

C. Evidence Involving Fires in Other Grills

Nexgrill moves to preclude the Pukts from introducing

evidence of fires involving models of its grills other than the

Model 720-0036-HD-05 grill. Nexgrill and the Pukts focus their

argument on evidence of fires in Model 720-0025 grills, another

grill in the 720 series of grills. As with the Model 720-0036-

HD-05 grill, Model 720-0025 grills were recalled due to a defect

that allowed a fuel hose to run up too close to the firebox.

The Pukts intend to introduce evidence of the 720-025 fires

as “evidence of Nexgrill's failure to properly test and inspect

the model series and grill family at issue in this case, which

included the subject grill.” Doc. no. 133-1 at 4. They argue

that there is substantial similarity between those fires and

their grill because (1) both models of grills were submitted for

certification as members of the Nexgrill’s 720 series without

testing and (2) both ultimately exhibited similar defects.

10 Nexgrill contends that fires involving 720-0025 model

grills are not substantially similar, and, therefore, evidence

concerning them is inadmissible. In support, Nexgrill asserts

that the two grills were different products, containing

different hoses, fireboxes, and failure mechanisms. Nexgrill

also asserts that the probative value of evidence concerning the

Model 720-025 grill would be outweighed by its prejudicial

effect and the risk that it will confuse the jury.

Although evidence of accidents occurring in similar but

different products may be admissible, the circumstances of the

accidents must be substantially similar. See Moulton, 116 F.3d

at 26-27. The Pukts have not demonstrated substantial

similarity between fires involving Model 720-0025 grills and the

fire involving their grill. Among other differences, the Model

720-0025 grill was bigger than the 720-0036-HD-05 grill, was

designed differently, and had a different firebox construction.

That both grills were subject to similar testing is not a basis

for disregarding the requirement that the other accidents

occurred under circumstances substantially similar to the fire

in the Pukts’ grill.

Moreover, it is likely that any probative value of the

evidence that the Pukts seek to introduce would be substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the

11 jury, wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative

evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Pukts’ negligent testing

theory would likely result in the introduction of technical

evidence involving the design, manufacture, and certification of

the Model 720-0025 grill, which is not the grill model at issue

in this case. Further, the evidence of fires in Model 720-0025

grills will not only be cumulative of the evidence of other

grill fires but will also involve a model different from the one

that the Pukts owned.

Therefore, the Pukts have not shown that the evidence of

fires in the Model 720-0025 grills is relevant, and, as a

result, the evidence would likely be more unfairly prejudicial

than probative.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to

preclude evidence of fires involving the subject grill (doc. no.

78) is denied. The defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of

the RGA Reports (doc. no. 81) is denied to the extent the

evidence is offered to show notice of a defect and is otherwise

12 granted. The defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of fires

involving other model grills (doc. no. 82) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

September 6, 2016

cc: Raymond E. Mack, Esq. Joseph L. McGlynn, Esq. Kevin Truland, Esq. Richard F. Wholley, Esq.