Moody v. Haymarket Associates

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Torts

TortsNegligenceEvidencenegligenceevidenceabsence of prior accidentssubstantial similarityrelevance

Facts

Moody sued Haymarket Associates and Sidney Epstein for injuries suffered when he fell in front of the elevator in the lobby of the Key Plaza office building in Bangor, alleging negligent maintenance of the premises. Before trial, Moody expressly abandoned any negligent supervision of maintenance claim and disclaimed any theory of a recurring or preexisting dangerous condition. That left only the narrow question whether, on the day of the accident, the janitor mopped the floor, failed to place a caution sign, and failed to replace the mats. Over Moody's relevance objection, the trial court admitted evidence that defendants had an accident-free record in the lobby for a 10-year period before trial.

Issue

In a negligence case narrowed to whether the janitor acted negligently on the particular day of the plaintiff's fall, was evidence of the absence of other accidents in the lobby relevant and admissible? If marginally relevant, was that evidence nevertheless unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403?

Rule

In a negligence action, evidence of similar accidents or of the absence of accidents may be circumstantially relevant to issues such as a defective or dangerous condition, notice, causation, or supervision only if there is a substantial similarity in the operative circumstances between the proffered evidence and the case at bar and the evidence is probative on a material issue. Even when relevant, the court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue delay under Rule 403.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Nina Alvarez slipped near the entrance of the Harbor Center office tower. Before trial, Nina expressly limited her negligence claim to the assertion that custodian Leo Martin had just mopped the marble floor, failed to set out a warning cone, and left the area uncovered by mats that morning.

At trial, Harbor Center offers testimony that no one had slipped in that entrance area during the previous nine years. Nina objects. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule requires substantial similarity in operative circumstances and probative value on a material issue before accident-history evidence is relevant. When the plaintiff limits the case to a one-time negligent act on a specific occasion, a long accident-free history of the location does not meaningfully bear on whether the employee acted negligently that day. Even if marginally relevant, it should be excluded under Rule 403 because it invites the jury to decide the case on an improper basis using general safety history rather than the specific conduct at issue. (Derived from Moody v. Haymarket Associates (n.d.).)