Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

645 So. 2d 100

Frazier v. Otis Elevator Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 9, 1994

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-11-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Wal-Mart Stores v. McDonald, 854 So. 2d 1264 - Castillo v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

“Frazier was remanded for a new trial because the trial court admitted evidence of other pallet jack accidents where it was not shown that the accidents involved the use of an Otis pallet jack under substantially similar conditions. Contrary to what DuPont argues here, this case does not require”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 854 So. 2d 1264 - Castillo v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

Relies on 436 So. 2d 236 - Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov · Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer · 458 So. 2d 335 - Ashby Division of Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2010

3 state decisions

10199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GREEN, Judge.

¶1We affirm the final order granting a new trial filed on behalf of defendant Otis Elevator Company (“Otis”).1 As a general *101rule, 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.

¶2In 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.

¶3Affirmed and remanded.

¶4. 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).

/645/so2d/100 · .json · Public domain