2011 Pa. Super. 99 - Blumer v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Evidence of prior accidents involving the same instrumentality is generally relevant to show that a defect or dangerous condition existed or that the defendant had knowledge of the defect. However, this evidence is admissible only if the prior accident is sufficiently similar to the incident involving the plaintiff which occurred under sufficiently similar circumstances. The burden is on the party introducing the evidence to establish this similarity before the evidence is admitted. Lockley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 5 A.3d 383, 395 (Pa.Super.2010) (citation omitted). “Determining whether and to what extent proffered evidence of prior accidents involves substantially, similar circumstances will depend on the underlying theory of the case advanced by the plaintiffs.” Bitter v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227 , 1239 (10th Cir.2004). “If the evidence of other accidents is substantially similar to the accident at issue in a particular case, then that evidence will assist the trier of fact by making the existence of a fact in dispute more or less probable, and the greater the degree of similarity the more relevant the evidence.” Id. “Naturally, this is a fact-specific inquiry that depends largely on the theory of the underlying defect in a particular case.” Id. Accordingly, a wide degree of latitude is vested in the trial court in determining whether evidence is substantially similar and should be admitted. Lockley, 5 A.3d at 395 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 281 - Parr, J. v. Ford Motor Company

2. “When measures are taken by a party that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible against that party to prove: • negligence; • culpable conduct; • a defect in a product or its design; or • a need for a warning or instruction. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose such as impeachment or-if disputed-proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. B.S. Mitchell v. M.M. Milburn

3. “[The Superior] Court will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding the grant or refusal of a new trial absent an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Further, if the basis of the request is the trial court’s rulings on evidence, then such rulings must be shown to have been not only erroneous but also harmful to the complaining party. Evidentiary rulings which did not affect the verdict will not provide a basis for [relief].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 Pa. D. & C.5th 33 - Sandin v. Dempsey