JIMMY FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Evidence of prior accidents is admissible only if it involves the same equipment under substantially similar conditions.
Plaintiff sued Otis Elevator Company for an accident involving a pallet jack. The trial court admitted evidence of other pallet jack accidents, but it…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
GREEN, Judge.
We affirm the final order granting a new trial filed on behalf of defendant Otis Elevator Company (“Otis”).1 As a general rule, evidence of the occurrence or non-occurrence of prior accidents is admissible only if it pertains to the use of the same type of appliance or equipment under substantially similar conditions. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1969); Ashby Div. of Consol. Aluminium Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Lasar Mfg. Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Such evidence is admissible, if not too remote in time, for the purpose of showing the dangerous character of the instrument and the defendant’s knowledge thereof. Railway Express at 873; Lasar Mfg. at 238.
In the instant case, we agree with the court below that the original trial judge erred in admitting evidence of other pallet jack accidents at trial where it was not shown that such accidents involved the use of an Otis pallet jack under substantially similar conditions as plaintiffs accident. We are particularly constrained to reach this conclusion where the record reflects the presence of at least one other type of pallet jack which was not manufactured by Otis. Hence, unless the plaintiff is able to conclusively demonstrate that the other accidents occurred under substantially similar conditions as plaintiffs accident with the use of an Otis pallet jack, this evidence should be excluded at the retrial of this cause.
Affirmed and remanded.
. The trial court below granted the motion for new trial in its capacity as a successor judge pursuant to our decision of Otis Elevator Co. v. Gerstein, 612 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castillo v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 854 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2003)…Britain. The Third District held this was error and that the evidence was vague and indefinite and whatever relevance it had, it was greatly outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury. DuPont relies on Frazier v. Otis Elevator Co., 645 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), which holds that as a general rule “evidence of the occurrence or non-occurrence of prior accidents is admissible only if it pertains to the use of the same type of appliance or equipment under substantially similar conditio…
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDONALD, 676 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…n which McDonald was shot did not have security on the date of the incident. We conclude that the appellants did not lay an adequate predicate showing how the two locations and circumstances are “substantially similar.” Frazier v. Otis Elevator Co., 645 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We note that the appellants have not demonstrated prejudice, as the lower court permitted Wal-Mart’s expert to use the “calls to service” records as a basis for his opinions, and Wal-Mart’s counsel was allowed to mention that the…
-
Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…many claims is that they involved the same product, Benlate. That is not enough to allow admission here. Evidence should not be admitted unless the product was used in circumstances that were substantially similar. See Frazier v. Otis Elevator Co., 645 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See generally Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla.1969). The trial court erroneously allowed the non-parties’ prior claims testimony because it believed that this testimony demonstrated notice o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Haskell V. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1969)
- Ashby Div. OF Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. The Honorable Norman S. Gerstein, 612 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)