| Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Accidents
In product liability actions alleging that a product is dangerously defective, plaintiffs often attempt to introduce evidence of prior accidents occurring with the same product to show that the product is defective and that the manufacturer had knowledge of the defective nature of the product. Generally speaking, evidence of prior accidents is admissible at trial to show that the product is dangerous as long as:
- the product in the prior accident is the same as the product involved in the plaintiff's accident;
- the accidents occurred under the same or substantially similar conditions as that involving the plaintiff; and
- the accidents occurred within the same general time frame.
In determining whether to admit evidence of prior accidents, courts also conduct a balancing test to determine whether the probative nature of the evidence outweighs any potential prejudice against the defendant. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to determine whether evidence of prior accidents should be admitted, and those decisions will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial judge has abused that discretion.
In one case against the manufacturer of a motorbike, the court allowed evidence of prior accidents with the same make and model of motorbike in the form of accident statistics from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The court reasoned that the accidents in the government statistics were substantially similar to the accident that hurt the plaintiff. Another court allowing evidence of prior accident reports in a case alleging that a cleaning product was dangerously defective reasoned that the evidence was properly admitted because the conditions involved in the reports were similar to those in the plaintiff's case. Further, the court ruled that the evidence might be relevant to prove the manufacturer's notice of the defect, the extent of the danger involved, the alternatives to the product formulation, and the lack of safety for the product's intended use.
Some courts have refused to admit evidence of prior accidents in product liability cases on the ground that the introduction of the evidence would unfairly surprise the defendant. Other courts have limited admissibility of prior accidents on the ground that it would confuse the issues in the case. Finally, some courts have determined that evidence of prior accidents is inadmissible because it is cumulative of other evidence that has already been introduced into evidence.
|
