Simon v. Town of Kennebunkport
417 A.2d 982 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of prior similar accidents is admissible to circumstantially prove a defective or dangerous condition, causation, or notice, provided the proponent shows the other accidents occurred under circumstances substantially similar to the incident in question and the evidence's probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Facts:
- In 1974 or 1975, the Town of Kennebunkport constructed an uneven, inclined sidewalk along Ocean Avenue.
- The condition of this sidewalk remained unchanged between its construction and July 1977.
- On July 22, 1977, Irene Simon, an elderly woman, was walking on this sidewalk.
- Simon stumbled and fell on the sidewalk, sustaining a broken hip.
- In the two years prior to Simon's fall, two local business operators, Greg Quevillon and Anthony Cooper, had observed approximately 100 other people stumble or fall at the same location on the sidewalk under similar conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- Irene Simon filed a complaint against the Town of Kennebunkport in the Superior Court, York County (trial court).
- At trial, the presiding Justice sustained the Town's objection and excluded evidence of prior falls on the same sidewalk.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that no defect in the sidewalk had proximately caused Simon's fall.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the Town of Kennebunkport.
- Irene Simon (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, with the Town of Kennebunkport as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of prior similar accidents admissible under the Maine Rules of Evidence to prove the existence of a defective or dangerous condition in a negligence action?
Opinions:
Majority - Glassman, Justice
Yes. Evidence of prior similar accidents is admissible. Maine's former blanket rule of exclusion is incompatible with the modern Rules of Evidence, which favor admissibility of relevant evidence. Under the current rules, such evidence must be evaluated for its relevance and probative value. The trial court must first determine if the proponent has shown a 'substantial similarity in the operative circumstances' between the prior accidents and the one at bar. If this foundation is laid, the court must then conduct a balancing test under M.R.Evid. 403 to determine if the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers like unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or undue delay. In this case, the proffered testimony about approximately 100 prior falls at the same unchanged location was highly probative of a defective condition, and its exclusion was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision formally abandons Maine's traditional, inflexible rule automatically excluding evidence of prior accidents. It aligns Maine with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions by adopting a modern, discretionary standard based on relevance and a balancing test. The ruling establishes a clear framework for trial courts, requiring a foundational showing of substantial similarity before weighing probative value against prejudicial effect. This change significantly impacts negligence litigation in Maine, making it easier for plaintiffs to introduce 'safety-history' evidence to prove the existence of a dangerous condition and notice.
