The district court, applying these fac- tors to the case before it, concluded that the plaintiff should not be compelled to accept the defendant’s stipulation. It de- termined, first, that the stipulation at issue was of “central importance to the litiga- tion” because the stipulation, if accepted, would virtually preclude the plaintiff from offering any proof of facts to demonstrate the defendant’s liability under each of the
contact with electrified third rail running at grade crossing of municipal transit system, evidence of prior accidents was admissible even when defendant had stipulated to no- tice; an offer to stipulate does not foreclose the presentation of such evidence when the potential prejudice does not outweigh pro- bative value); Wood v. Dalton, 2000 WL 1174991 (D.D.C. 2000)(plaintiff would not be barred from presenting neurosurgeon’s testimony though defendant was willing to stipulate to testimony; as a “general rule, a party may not preclude his adversary’s proof by an admission or offer to stipulate”); Gutowski v. M & R. Plastics & Coating, Inc., 231 N.W.2d 456, 465 (Wis. 1975)(in ac- tion against manufacturer based on inad- equate warnings and instructions on chemi- cal product, trial court erred in preventing
three theories of liability asserted.17
With
respect to the second factor, the nature of the stipulation, the trial court remarked that the defendant had specifically dis- claimed any negligence, product defect or misrepresentation, did not relinquish af- firmative defenses, and furthermore, sought to restrict the waiver’s effect solely to that action. Given the limited and be- grudging nature of the stipulation, the
plaintiff from proving extent of product tox- icity on the ground that the manufacturer had stipulated that the product was toxic, dangerous and had some volatility; manu- facturer only acknowledged that the prod- uct had some health hazards and plaintiff intended to prove that product was so dan- gerous that even its fumes could cause bron- chial asthma; holding that a “concession on a material issue which fails to cover all of the facets of the issue will not preclude the op- posite party’s introduction of evidence on the issue.”)
17
Briggs, 174 F.R.D. at 375. Even an outright stipulation as to liability will not necessarily preclude the plaintiff from showing, for ex- ample, how an accident happened where material to damages. See, e.g., Fuentes v. Tucker, 187 P.2d 752 (1947).
But it was the final factor— the impact of the stipulation, if ordered, on the party resisting the stipulation – which most militated against an order that the plaintiff accept the waiver. The defendant asserted that its offer to waive any require- ment that the plaintiff prove any legal theories other than causation and dam- ages essentially removed the issues of product defect, product hazards, product misrepresentations and punitive damages from the jury. At the same time, how- ever, the defendant proposed to defend the causation claim by arguing that plaintiff ’s damages were caused by a sexu- ally transmitted disease contracted by relations with numerous partners, rather than by the IUD. Under these circum- stances, the district court would not order acceptance of the waiver. It explained:
district court urged, the stipulation was technically, but not practically a waiver of proof. The third factor, the scope of the proposed stipulation, militated against acceptance because the scope was “far- reaching” because it was not limited to a “particular piece of evidence, or the testi- mony of a particular witness, but instead is aimed at the plaintiff’s entire liability case.”18
(Continued on page 8)
Summer 2003
Trial Reporter
9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56