Opinion ID: 2216530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Objections to Rulings on Evidence.

Text: Defendant challenges two rulings by the trial court on the admission of evidence. The most serious deals with testimony relating to prior accidents. Before reaching that issue, we discuss briefly the other claimed error concerning the admission of a post-accident letter from the Department of Transportation to North Western. This letter asked the railroad to reply to a pre-accident letter about this and other Polk County crossings. Defendant says it was error to admit this letter under the rule which excludes evidence of post-accident repairs or alterations. In the present case this letter did no more than corroborate evidence which was already in the record without objection. Its admission was without prejudice and affords defendant no basis for complaint. Evidence of two prior accidents at this crossing was admitted over objection that they occurred under circumstances dissimilar to those in the present case. We hold this was error. Since Lindquist v. Des Moines Union Railway Company, 239 Iowa at 368, 30 N.W.2d at 126, we have permitted evidence of prior accidents, not to show negligence, but to show the existence of a dangerous condition and notice. It must appear the prior accidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances. In Lindquist, 239 Iowa at 368, 30 N.W.2d at 126, we said: While the weight and credibility of such evidence is for the trier of fact, it would appear that it is relevant to the issue involved, ( the existence of a hazardous condition and notice thereof to the defendant ). That by the great weight of authority and based upon sound principle, such evidence is admissible as an abstract proposition. (Emphasis added). In a later case, Berk v. Arendts, 254 Iowa at 370, 117 N.W.2d at 909, we added this: It is well settled in Iowa that evidence of prior accidents and near accidents is admissible to show the dangerous character of a crossing. [Citations omitted]. However, it must appear that conditions were comparable and not too remote. [Citations omitted]. (Emphasis added). One of the prior accidents involved here occurred in the daytime between a moving train and a moving car. In the present case we have an accident at night involving a stopped train. The other happened at night when visibility was hampered by fog. The accident now before us occurred on a clear night. The only similarity in circumstances (and the one the trial court relied on) is that the two prior accidents occurred while the vehicles were approaching the crossing from the same direction as the decedent. We do not believe this meets the test of Lindquist and Berk. Conditions were so dissimilar that the evidence should not have been received. On retrial it should be excluded.