Opinion ID: 1898492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in excluding testimony and evidence of three prior accidents at the scarborough street crossing?

Text: Prior to trial, the lower court sustained the ICGRR's motion in limine and prohibited the appellants from offering evidence of three (3) prior accidents at the Scarborough Street crossing that had occurred within eighteen (18) months prior to April 20, 1981, the date of the collision. The purpose for which Mitcham sought to enter this evidence was to show that the crossing was ultra-hazardous, and that ICGRR knew of the three (3) accidents but took no action to remedy the situation. Where evidence of other accidents or injuries is used to show the risk that a defendant's conduct has created the requirement of substantial similarity is applied strictly. McCormick on Evidence, § 200 (3rd ed. 1984). This Court has stated that evidence of prior accidents is admissible to show the existence of a dangerous condition and knowledge of such condition only upon a showing of substantial similarity of conditions. Parmes v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 440 So.2d 261, 265 (Miss. 1983). Additionally, this Court has stated that: In general, the admissibility [of prior accidents] 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 Insurance Group v. Massey, 216 So.2d 415, 417 (Miss. 1968). In the case sub judice, it must be noted that there is no record of the hearing on the motion in limine, but it can be gathered from the trial record that the lower court found that this situation lacked the requisite permanence of conditions, in that the conditions of the crossing that would have been put into issue, the height of vegetation on ICGRR's right-of-way, change with the seasons. As the only record of this hearing is an allusion to it in the trial record, in which the lower court stated that the prior accidents should be excluded due to dissimilarity, we must assume that there was never a substantial showing of similarity of conditions so as to satisfy the lower court. Under these circumstances the evidence was not admissible to show either the existence of a dangerous condition or knowledge of hazardous circumstances. Parmes, 440 So.2d at 265. Thus, the lower court was correct in excluding evidence of the three (3) prior accidents to prove an ultrahazardous condition, and as such, this assignment of error is without merit.