Porche v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc.
Lawrence Porche (Porche) appeals a judgment following a jury trial of his strict product liability claim against Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., (Paradigm). Porches theory of recovery was that a medical cutting instrument, a microkeratome utilized by the ophthalmologist during Lasik surgery, was defectively designed, making it susceptible to injury producing misassembly by the surgeon or technician, as Porche alleged occurred in his case. Porche sought to introduce into evidence certain corporate documents pertaining to complaints received and investigated by the designer and manufacturer of the device, Paradigms predecessor in-interest, Innovative Optics, Inc., (Innovative). The documents (complaint forms) were compiled prior to and shortly after Porches eye surgery. They memorialized reported incidents of user misassembly of the microkeratome resulting in deep cuts, i.e., beyond desired limits. The court, noting the complaint forms constituted hearsay evidence, eventually excluded them under Evidence Code section 352[1] as highly prejudicial and likely to cause undue consumption of time. Porche concedes he offered the out-of-court statements to prove the truth of the matter stated ( 1200, subd. (a)), i.e., that the microkeratome had been misassembled and caused injury in the past. But he argues the complaint forms were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule business records ( 1271), party admissions ( 1220, 1224), and third-party declarations against interest ( 1230). He further contends the court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence under section 352 because the documents were so critical to proving his case. Finally, Porche argues he was entitled to a new trial based on the erroneous evidentiary ruling and on the ground the verdict was against the evidence. Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Porche v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc.