Opinion ID: 2614372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Previous Injuries

Text: Over objection by defendant, George Falk, a former employee of defendant, was permitted to testify that before the accident he had told Mr. Kalik, defendant's vice-president, that: we should do something about that rail because I had heard from one of the employees  I don't remember who it was  that someone had almost fallen, and he said, `All right. Go ahead, and get the extensions put on it.' The trial court instructed the jury that the conversation was received for the limited purpose of showing that defendant had notice of the condition of the stairway. Defendant claims that the court erred, on the ground that there was no preliminary showing that the alleged previous incident occurred under substantially similar circumstances as the injury in the present case. [11] Before evidence of previous injuries may be admitted on the issue of whether or not the condition as it existed was in fact a dangerous one, it must first be shown that the conditions under which the alleged previous accidents occurred were the same or substantially similar to the one in question. ( Martindale v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 89 Cal. App.2d 400, 411 [201 P.2d 48]; see Wigmore, Evidence § 458; McCormick, Evidence 351-352. The strictness of this requirement of similarity of conditions is much relaxed, however, when the purpose of the offered evidence is to show notice, since all that is required here is that the previous injury should be such as to attract the defendant's attention to the dangerous situation which resulted in the litigated accident. (McCormick, Evidence 352; see also McCormick v. Great Western Power Co., 214 Cal. 658, 665-666 [8 P.2d 145, 81 A.L.R. 678]; Gilbert v. Pessin Grocery Co., 132 Cal. App.2d 212, 217-221 [282 P.2d 148].) [12] In the present case it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove not only that the stairway was dangerous but that the defendant knew or should have known that it was. Mr. Falk's testimony was offered solely to show such notice. The import of that testimony was that Mr. Kalik had been informed that someone had slipped on the stairs and that extensions should be installed on the handrail. If believed, the testimony would support a finding that defendant was aware that the handrail presented a hazard to the users of the stairway. It was therefore relevant and admissible, not to show that someone actually fell, but to show defendant's knowledge of the dangerous condition of the stairway. Insofar as Thompson v. Buffum's, Inc., 17 Cal. App.2d 401 [62 P.2d 171], is inconsistent with the principle that it is proper to admit evidence of previous injuries that reasonably tends to show that the defendant knew or should have known of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the injury in question, it is disapproved. [2]