In action seeking damages to granulator manufactured by defendant that plaintiff claimed were caused by either failure to install fire-suppression system or by defects in filters essential to eliminate flammable dust stemming from exhaust of said machine, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing plaintiff to argue to jury that filters in granulator were defective even though plaintiff had admitted prior to trial that it “was not presently aware of anyone that observed cracked, chipped or poorly fitting filters in granulator” or that plaintiff had not discovered “any evidence that one or more of the granulator filters or filter housings was cracked, chipped or poorly fitting” at time of fire. Evidence used by plaintiff at trial did not controvert its admissions, since plaintiff had only “indirect evidence” suggesting that one or more filters may have been cracked at time of fire. Moreover, while plaintiff should have used procedures set forth in Rule 36(b) to seek withdrawal of any prior admission, Dist. Ct. had informally used said procedure in allowing plaintiff to argue that filters were defective, and any failure to formally invoke Rule 36(b) was harmless, when all evidence in case is considered. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Evidence