Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

The Third District Reaffirms the General Admissibility of "No Accident" Evidence
October 26, 2010

Florida's Third District Court of Appeal recently decided Lewis v. Sun Time Corp., No. 3D09-746, --- So. 3d ----, 2010 WL 4103173 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 20, 2010), in which it addressed the admissibility of "no accident" evidence in a premises-liability action. Specifically, the case involved a plaintiff who slipped on a set of wet terrazzo stairs at the entrance of a Miami Beach hotel/restaurant. These same stairs had been in place for more than 70 years. The trial court admitted evidence that no prior slip-and-fall accidents had occurred at this location during that time frame.

On appeal, the Third District affirmed by relying on the general rule that "a no-accident history of the location of a premises liability case may be admitted into evidence for a variety of purposes including the central one of showing that the area was not in fact dangerous or defective." Slip op. at 2. The court also collected many Florida and foreign cases supporting a potentially broader "no accident" rule: The "lack of other accidents may be admissible to show (1) an absence of the defect or condition alleged, (2) the lack of a causal relationship between the injury and the defect or condition charged, (3) the nonexistence of an unduly dangerous situation, or (4) want of knowledge (or of grounds to realize) the danger." Slip op. at 3 & n.1.

In sum, Lewis is a useful decision to cite when offering evidence that a certain location (or, perhaps, a particular product) has not previously experienced the type of accident now at issue. However, counsel should also be aware that the substantial-similarity doctrine generally applies to this type of evidence and should, therefore, be prepared to offer the court specific evidence as to how the premises or product has remained in a substantially similar condition during the relevant time frame. See Slip op. at 5-6 & n.2.

 

 
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support Mass Tort and Product Liability
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.