Opinion ID: 1669311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of similar occurrences

Text: For their second point, Ford and Quality urge that the trial judge erred in two respects regarding Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, a computer printout known as the SE-II report. The report contained 106 warranty repairs to the throttle cable assembly on 1986 Ford Broncos with the same engine and transmission as the appellee's vehicle. First, they allege that Massey failed to show a substantial similarity between the incidents of cable failure in his Ford Bronco and the incidents of cable failure noted in the SE-II report which militated against its admissibility. Secondly, they assert that the trial judge erred in refusing to strike Exhibit 7 after he directed a verdict in favor of the appellants on Massey's negligence claim. The SE-II report listed 106 warranty repairs to the precise throttle cable assembly at issue in this case, each of which was assigned a code number to designate the reason for the cable assembly repair. Code number 41 stated that the throttle cable assembly sticks, binds, grabs, seized. There were 45 such repairs. The next highest number of repairs32was referenced by the number 01 for broken, cracked. Other codes denoted improper adjustments, idles too fast, bent, kinked, split seams, loose, improperly routed, misaligned, and other such descriptions. Some entries elaborated on the shorthand code, but most contained no comments. The general rule with respect to the admissibility of evidence of similar occurrences is that it is admissible only upon a showing that the events arose out of the same or substantially similar circumstances. Westark Specialties, Inc. v. Stouffer Family, Ltd., 310 Ark. 225, 836 S.W.2d 354 (1992). The burden rests on the party offering the evidence to prove that the necessary similarity of conditions exists. Id. The relevancy of such evidence is within the trial judge's discretion, subject to reversal only if an abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Turner v. Lamitina, 297 Ark. 361, 761 S.W.2d 929 (1988). Whether an occurrence is substantially similar to the matter at hand depends on the underlying theory of the case. Four Corners Helicopters, Inc. v. Turbomeca, S.A., 979 F.2d 1434 (10th Cir. 1992); Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404 (10th Cir.1988). For example, evidence submitted to demonstrate a dangerous condition necessitates a high degree of similarity because it weighs directly on the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. Id. But the requirement of substantial similarity is relaxed, when the evidence of other incidents is used to show notice or awareness of a potential defect in a product. Id. In this case, after the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the appellants on that issue, he refused to strike the SE-II report which was already in evidence or to instruct the jury not to consider it. In so ruling, he determined that the report would not prejudice the jury in its determination of the strict liability claim because the jury had a clear understanding of the evidence. He had previously refused to grant a motion in limine to exclude Exhibit 7 because it related specifically to the throttle cable and the repairs were clearly defined. Ford and Quality complain that the jury was allowed to consider the warranty repairs as evidence of a defective condition without a showing on the appellee's part of any substantial similarity. It was incumbent upon Massey, say the appellants, to present evidence to establish that the affected vehicles were used or maintained properly and that the cable assemblies in the code 41 vehicles stuck, bound, grabbed, or seized due to an internal fault. In addition, the appellants vigorously urge that of the various warranty repairs coded 41, only eight involved a cable replacement which they contend is what Larry Pipes considered to be the only recourse for a defective cable. The other Code classifications, they contend, were simply dissimilar and, therefore, irrelevant and prejudicial. We agree with the trial judge that the SE-II warranty report was limited to a catalogue of repairs involving part number 9A758, the precise throttle cable assembly at issue in the present case for the model of 1986 Ford Bronco owned by the appellee. Moreover, the Code phrases in the report were specific and summarized in a manner that was readily understandable. Furthermore, the SE-II report was analyzed at length by a Ford automotive engineer, Ken Waller, who was called as a witness by Massey, and then further analyzed by Larry Pipes. The jury was presented with thorough testimony on the exhibit relative to the repairs to the throttle cable assembly in question. We turn to an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision for a case in point. See Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641 (11th Cir.1990). In Hessen , the district court permitted the introduction of evidence regarding customer complaints of various leaks of fuel and fumes in the Jaguar XJ6 series in connection with a products liability action relating to a car fire. The plaintiff's expert did not point to a specific defect, but concluded that the fuel hose and connector were defective because they had a tendency to leak in various places. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the admission of the complaints, and noted that the timing and circumstances of the incidents were similar enough that the admission of evidence concerning other occurrences was not an abuse of discretion. 915 F.2d at 650. In Four Corners Helicopters, Inc. v. Turbomeca, S.A., supra , the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court which had allowed the introduction into evidence of sixteen reports of various repairs and a computer printout listing those reports which depicted similar incidents of screws backing out of an engine even though the similar incidents did not involve accidents or failures in flight which was the subject of that litigation. The incidents, declared the court, though not identical, were substantially similar and were therefore admissible to indicate the existence of a defect. They further met any relaxed requirement of similarity and were therefore admissible for all purposes offered by plaintiffs. 979 F.2d at 1440. The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The Arkansas cases cited by Ford and Quality to support abuse of discretion on substantial similarity questions are distinguishable on their facts. In Westark Specialties, Inc. v. Stouffer Family, Ltd., supra , the plaintiff attempted to prove substantial similarity of an insurance payment in connection with a previous lease without proving the content of the previous lease or the basis for the insurance company's payment. In Turner v. Lamitina, supra , two traffic lights were the focus of the evidentiary issue, but they were never proved to be identical or to be operating in sequence or to come from the same central electric system. The dissimilarities in the proposed evidence in each case were striking. We conclude that Exhibit 7 was relevant and that there was no showing of prejudice in the wake of the trial judge's decision not to exclude or strike the exhibit. The repairs involved were analyzed, discussed, and distinguished in great detail by the Ford engineer and Larry Pipes. We note, too, that the exhibit is clear and straightforward, especially in the summary by code categories, which minimizes the potential for juror confusion on the several repair classifications. After the directed verdict on the negligence claim and the judge's decision not to strike Exhibit 7, trial counsel agreed not to refer to the exhibit again through testimony or by argument. Yet, the appellants made no effort to request a limiting instruction for the jury to disregard any part of the SE-II report. It is true that the appellants had the right to rely on their motion for mistrial and motion to strike. But in light of the trial judge's ruling that Exhibit 7 represented no prejudice, a limiting instruction on certain SE-II codes was an option available to the appellants which could have been utilized and was not. We cannot say that under these circumstances where the exhibit dealt with repairs to the identical equipment at issue in the casethe throttle cable assemblyand where the repairs were clearly analyzed and described by witnesses, the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to exclude it or to strike it. Affirmed. HAYS, J., dissents.