Opinion ID: 687677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantially Similar Accident

Text: 40 Novak sought to introduce facts and testimony from a Mississippi accident which Novak alleged was caused by the same flaw. See Wilmoth v. Peaster Tractor Co., 544 So.2d 1384 (Miss.1989). In response to the district court's question whether Novak was asserting that the Mississippi case should be submitted to the jury as a similar accident, Novak's counsel replied, No, whereupon the district court ruled that Novak would be permitted to refer to the testimony given by Navistar's expert witness in the Mississippi case, but that the facts of that case could not be submitted to the jury. 41 The decision to admit evidence of other accidents is committed to the district court's sound discretion. McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1410 (8th Cir.1994); Drabik v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 997 F.2d 496, 508 (8th Cir.1993). 42 In view of counsel's response to the court's question, we conclude that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in excluding evidence describing the facts of the Mississippi accident, Laubach v. Otis Elevator Co., 37 F.3d 427, 428 (8th Cir.1994), for if prior incidents are not substantially similar to the one giving rise to the case in issue, they are not admissible. Id.; McKnight, 36 F.3d at 1410; Drabik, 997 F.2d at 508.