William Croskey was seriously injured in July 2000 when his girlfriends 1992 BMW automobile overheated and he opened the hood to add fluid. Because the plastic neck on the cars radiator failed, scalding radiator fluid spewed out and came in contact with Croskey, severely burning him. Relying on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Croskey filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the cars manufacturer, Bayerische Motoren Werk Aktiengesellschaft (BMW AG), and the North American distributor of BMW vehicles, BMW of North America (BMW NA). Croskey pleaded two alternative claims: (1) negligent design on the part of BMW AG and (2) negligent failure to warn on the part of BMW AG and BMW NA. Deciding an evidentiary question prior to trial, the district court ruled that Croskey could use evidence of substantially similar incidents of plastic neck failure if those incidents came to the attention of the defendants and if the incidents occurred between 1991 and the date Croskey was injured. However, the court allowed this evidence to be used only in regard to the negligent failure to warn claim, and prohibited its use in regard to the negligent design claim. The court also ruled that concerning the negligent failure to warn claim, the defendants could introduce evidence of the number of BMWs sold with plasticnecked radiators between 1994 (when the defendants first learned of a neck failure) and the date of the Croskey incident. The purpose of such evidence was to show the likelihoodor lack of likelihoodof a neck failure. The case proceeded to trial. Rejecting Croskeys negligent design and negligent failure to warn claims, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Croskey appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Should the court of appeals reverse the district courts decision