United States Eighth Circuit

In a personal injury action arising out of an alleged defect in a muzzleloader rifle manufactured and distributed by defendants, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) certain prior incidents of which plaintiff sought to introduce evidence were not "substantially similar" to plaintiff's accident, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the evidence; 2) defendant did not offer certain alleged hearsay testimony for the truth of what a proof house said, but rather to demonstrate the reasons for the company's marking procedures; and 3) certain witnesses' testimony was not so fundamentally unsupported that it could offer no assistance to the jury.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/10/2010
• Published 12/10/2010

Judges

• John R. Gibson

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel