Opinion ID: 796549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limiting Admissibility of Prior Incident Reports

Text: 33 Review for abuse of discretion cuts both ways, and we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the admissibility of prior incident reports. In her cross-appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court abused its discretion in partially granting Defendant's motion in limine and limiting the prior incident reports admissible in evidence. We disagree. The requirement of substantial similarity facilitates the exclusion of irrelevant evidence under Rules 401 and 403. The relevance of similar incidents depends in part on their proximity in time to the incident at issue in the case before the court. 3 See Hicks v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, 821 F.2d 1311, 1315-16 (8th Cir.1987) (no abuse where district court excluded evidence of accidents six years before as too remote notwithstanding plaintiff's argument that the evidence would have established how long the defendant had been on notice of the danger); Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655, 661-62 (11th Cir.1988) (Because of the potential prejudicial impact of prior accidents, courts have developed limitations governing their admissibility, including that the prior accident must not have occurred too remote in time). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding prior incidents more than four years remote in time. See Hicks, 821 F.2d at 1315 (incidents six years earlier too remote); Sue, 279 F.2d at 418 (five years too remote); Jones, 861 F.2d at 662 (incidents 18 months old sufficiently close). 34