In any product liability action, evidence of any scientific advancements in technical or other knowledge or techniques, or in design theory or philosophy, or in manufacturing or testing knowledge, techniques, or processes, or in labeling, warnings of risks or hazards, or instructions for the use of such product, where such advancements were discovered subsequent to the time the product in issue was sold by the manufacturer, shall not be admissible for any purpose other than to show a duty to warn.
Source: L. 77: Entire part added, p. 821, § 2, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Duty to warn. After a product involving human safety has been sold and dangerous defects in design have come to the manufacturer's attention, the manufacturer has a duty either to remedy such defects, or if a complete remedy is not feasible, to give users adequate warnings and instructions concerning methods for minimizing danger. Downing v. Overhead Door Corp., 707 P.2d 1027 (Colo. App. 1985).
Evidence of preaccident warning. Evidence that the defendant prepared and distributed warnings regarding the product prior to the accident is admissible to show that the defendant had breached its duty to warn, as such evidence is probative of defendant's preaccident knowledge of the danger inherent in the product, and the feasibility of giving a warning to make the product less dangerous. Downing v. Overhead Door Corp., 707 P.2d 1027 (Colo. App. 1985).
Evidence of postaccident design change admissible. Since a postaccident design change may bear directly on the issue of feasible alternatives to the defective design, evidence of such a change may be admitted. Roberts v. May, 41 Colo. App. 82, 583 P.2d 305 (1978) (cause of action arose before effective date of section).
Limitation on evidence of subsequent remedial measures applicable in diversity-based action and controls the application of Fed. Rule of Evid. 407 but not in this case since cause of action arose before effective date of section. Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917 (1984).
Evidence of alternative concepts implemented later that were known as possible at time of manufacture is admissible under this section. Meller v. Heil Co., 745 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir. 1984).
Scientific advancements construed as new discoveries after original construction. Meller v. Heil Co., 745 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir. 1984).
For court's refusal to apply this section to new warning label, see Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1986).