Moody v. Haymarket Associates
1999 Me. LEXIS 17, 1999 ME 17, 723 A.2d 874 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence regarding the absence of other accidents is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial when the plaintiff's claim is limited to a specific, unique act of negligence on a particular occasion, and the accident history does not involve substantially similar operative circumstances or material issues such as notice or recurring conditions.
Facts:
- Dan C. Moody fell and sustained injuries in front of an elevator in the lobby of the Key Plaza office building in downtown Bangor.
- Moody alleged that Haymarket Associates and Sidney Epstein negligently maintained the premises.
- Moody specifically abandoned claims of negligent supervision of maintenance and assertions of a recurring or pre-existing dangerous condition before trial.
- Moody limited his claim at trial to whether, on the particular occasion of his fall, the janitor mopped the floor, failed to put out a caution sign, and failed to put the mats back down.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Dan C. Moody filed a complaint in the Superior Court (Penobscot County) for injuries sustained from a fall against defendants Haymarket Associates and Sidney Epstein, alleging negligent maintenance.
- Defendants filed a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses for failure to designate them as per a pretrial order, which the court denied but limited plaintiff to one expert per topic.
- Plaintiff's subsequent motion to amend the pretrial order to allow an additional expert was denied by the Superior Court.
- A jury trial was held in the Superior Court, and the jury unanimously answered "no" to a special interrogatory asking if defendants were negligent and if their negligence proximately caused the accident.
- Judgment was entered in favor of defendants Haymarket Associates and Sidney Epstein.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the Superior Court denied.
- Plaintiff Dan C. Moody appealed the judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the absence of other accidents when the plaintiff's negligence claim was narrowly focused on specific actions taken by a janitor on a particular day, rather than on general negligent maintenance, recurring dangerous conditions, or notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Wathen, C.J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the absence of other accidents because it was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial given the narrow scope of the plaintiff's claim. The court referenced Simon v. Town of Kennebunkport, stating that evidence of similar accidents or their absence may be relevant if there is a 'substantial similarity in the operative circumstances' and it is 'probative on a material issue.' However, even if relevant, its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue delay under M.R.Evid. 403. In this case, Moody's claim was specifically limited to whether the janitor acted negligently on a unique occasion by not putting out a caution sign or mats after mopping. Since Moody had abandoned claims regarding general maintenance supervision or recurring conditions, the defendants' accident-free record was not relevant to the narrow issue of the janitor's specific actions. The court found that the absence of other accidents in the lobby did not present information about substantially similar circumstances. Furthermore, even marginal relevance was outweighed by unfair prejudice because the jury was allowed to consider a 10-year accident-free record, much of which covered periods before and after the specific incident in 1991, leading the jury to potentially decide the case on an improper basis. The court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding sanctions for the untimely filing of expert witness lists.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the admissibility of evidence concerning the absence of prior accidents in negligence claims, particularly when the plaintiff's allegations are highly specific to an isolated event. It reinforces the 'substantial similarity' requirement for relevancy under M.R.Evid. 401 and the prejudice balancing test under M.R.Evid. 403, preventing defendants from using broad safety records to undermine very narrow claims of specific, momentary negligence. The decision highlights that a defendant's general safety record becomes irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial when it does not directly speak to the unique factual circumstances alleged, thus shaping how parties must frame their evidentiary arguments based on the specificity of the negligence claim.
