Minn. R. Civ. For other accident evidence to be admissible, the proponent of the evidence must show that the facts and circumstances of the other incident are substantially similar to the case at bar . . . . The general rule of limiting the admission of other accident evidence to those events which were substantially similar ensures that the focus of the trial stays on the specific type of accident forming the basis of the case. In the present case, it is preposterous to argue that cigarettes and gambling are substantially similar. Indeed, no product or activity is analogous to cigarettes and cigarette smoking.
Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in our society.
At least one out of every four regular smokers dies of smoking-related diseases. Cigarettes kill when used as intended , and there is no known level of safe consumption. None of the above applies to gambling. Indeed, any attempt to compare cigarettes to gambling, or any other activity or product, only serves to trivialize the grim realities of the toll of smoking. Nor is gambling an addictive behavior or a drug, comparable with cigarette smoking.