Opinion ID: 1099694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony of prior escapes.

Text: ¶ 18. Tucker and McMillan contend that it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the escape of the bull two months prior to the accident in this case. It is the rule of this Court that admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Sumrall v. Miss. Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 365 (Miss.1997). In addition, this Court has stated that our institutional role mandates substantial deference to the jury's findings of fact and to the trial judge's determination whether a jury issue was tendered.... The trial judge's determination of whether, under the standards articulated above, a jury issue has been presented, must per force be given great respect here. City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 478-79 (Miss.1983). In Locklar, this Court faced a similar evidentiary problem. There, the issue was whether the City of Jackson had notice of a dangerous condition, a negligently maintained manhole cover. Locklar, 431 So.2d at 477. In that case, the evidence showed that prior actions had informed the city of the existence of hazardous conditions and the evidence to that effect showed notice of the dangerous condition. Id. at 480. ¶ 19. Further this Court has ruled that admissibility is limited to conditions of permanency and the evidence must show that former accidents happened under substantially the same circumstances as those existing at the time of the accident. Hartford Ins. Group v. Massey, 216 So.2d 415, 417 (Miss.1968). In Massey, a case factually similar to this one, this Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet that standard because they failed to show that the former accidents involved cattle of the appellee and that a condition existed which should have given appellee notice of the dangerous condition so that failure to rectify the condition would be negligence. Id. at 418. Recently, this Court has allowed admission of evidence of previous bovine escapes as long as they occurred within twelve months of the disputed accident. Barrett v. Parker, 757 So.2d 182, 188-89 (Miss.2000). ¶ 20. In Tucker's case, the evidence of prior escapes consisted of the admission by the defendants that two months before the incident involving Salinas, the same bull had escaped from the same pasture and crossed the same road. This evidence was introduced to show that the defendants had notice of the existence of a dangerous condition and negligently neglected to take any measures to remedy the situation. At no time did the defendants contend that the conditions of the prior escape to the one at issue were not similar because they had taken measures to prevent the bull from escaping again. The probable reason they did not introduce such evidence is that they did not have any evidence to produce. Therefore, this evidence meets the requirements set forth in Massey for the similarity of conditions, and clearly the fact that it happened within two months of the accident with Salinas means that it also satisfies the temporal relationship requirement of Barrett.