Opinion ID: 1374687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Evidence Relating to Sierra Pacific's Maintenance Practices Was Relevant and Properly Admitted.

Text: Sierra Pacific objects to evidence about its maintenance practices and records of the plane in question during the time prior to the accident. Its argument is that the evidence was not relevant. We disagree. The National Transportation and Safety Board's investigation discovered that the M-6 form that would have covered the reinstallation of the flight controls on the plane here in question was missing. Sierra Pacific and Board investigators were unable to determine if the form was ever prepared, lost, misplaced, or destroyed. The fact that the form was missing, however, made relevant an inquiry into Sierra Pacific's record keeping system and procedures. The numerous discrepancies in Sierra Pacific's maintenance practice and procedures discovered by the Board were relevant in explaining why the M-6 form was never found. The evidence was also relevant to plaintiffs' punitive damages claim. The evidence was also relevant in explaining how the inadequately sized bolt could have been used, without ever being secured with a nut or cotter pin. The evidence was further relevant in addressing how Sierra Pacific did not discover the improperly sized and unsecured bolt. The fact is that had Sierra Pacific conducted normal maintenance procedures, it should have discovered the serious errors. Rule 401 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as any evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (Emphasis added.); see Harkness v. City of Burley, 110 Idaho 353, 715 P.2d 1283 (Sup.Ct. No. 15793, issued Feb. 2, 1986). In comments to the rule, it is stated that Rule 401 is to be interpreted broadly. Furthermore, it is the rule in Idaho that [t]he trial court has broad discretion as to the admission of evidence, including business records, and the exercise of that discretion will not be overturned absent the clear showing of abuse. Cheney, supra, 104 Idaho at 900, 665 P.2d at 664. (Citations omitted.) Trial judges also are granted broad discretion in determining relevancy. Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho 560, 569 n. 9, 671 P.2d 473, 482 n. 9 (1983). The facts of this case convince us that the evidence was relevant, and that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion, Cheney, supra, 104 Idaho at 900, 665 P.2d at 664, in admitting it.