⚡ 10-Second Rule
Other accidents count only if they happened the same way, in the same place, under the same conditions.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Nia tells her mom the big playground slide is dangerous. "Three kids got hurt last month!" Mom asks the right questions. Same slide? Same rainy weather? Hurt the same way? If two kids scraped knees on the little slide on a dry day, that proves nothing. But if three kids slipped off the same wet spot on this slide, mom listens. And if a thousand kids used it all summer without a scratch, that matters too. Matching matters. Only look-alike accidents teach you anything.
⚖️ Actual Rule
There is no dedicated federal rule for similar occurrences; the doctrine is case law applied through FRE 401–403. Under FRE 401, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Courts admit evidence of prior similar accidents to prove a dangerous condition, causation, or the defendant's notice of the danger — but only if the proponent shows the prior accidents occurred under conditions substantially similar to the accident at issue. Courts commonly demand less similarity when the evidence is offered only to prove notice. Evidence of the absence of prior accidents may show no dangerous condition or no notice, if the conditions were substantially similar and accidents would likely have been observed and reported. Everything remains subject to FRE 403: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
ELI-10 translation: other accidents come in only when they match this one closely — and a clean safety record can come in the same way.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- What is the other-accident evidence offered to prove? (Is the point "this spot is dangerous," "the owner knew," or "this caused the injury"? Those jobs are allowed.)
- Is it really offered to show the defendant is accident-prone? (If the point is "careless place, careless people," that's forbidden character thinking.)
- Were the prior accidents substantially similar — same place, mechanism, and conditions? (Do the old accidents look like twins of this one?)
- Is the purpose only notice? (If the point is just "the owner was warned," the twins can be more like cousins.)
- For absence of accidents: same conditions, and would mishaps have been noticed and reported? (A quiet record only counts if trouble would have been heard about.)
- Does the evidence survive FRE 403? (Even matching accidents lose if they'd spark a string of mini-trials or inflame the jury.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners offer prior-accident evidence with a similarity gap — a different staircase, dry weather instead of wet, a redesigned machine — and bait you into admitting it because it feels probative. The mirror trap: answer choices declaring that prior accidents are "inadmissible character evidence" or that an accident-free history is "never admissible," when both are admissible with the substantial-similarity foundation.
ELI-10: Don't count accidents — compare them. An old accident only helps if it's a near-twin of this one. And "nobody ever got hurt here" is allowed too, if anyone would have noticed the hurt.
🧪 Question
A shopper sued Delgado Hardware for negligence after slipping on the store's sloped entrance ramp during a rainstorm, alleging the ramp's surface became dangerously slick when wet and that the store knew it. At trial, the shopper offers testimony that in the six months before her fall, two other customers slipped and fell on the same ramp, each during rainy weather, and that both falls were reported to the store manager. The store objects that the testimony is irrelevant and constitutes improper character evidence.
Should the court admit the testimony?
(A) No, because prior accidents are inadmissible character evidence when offered to show negligence. (B) No, unless the prior falls resulted in lawsuits or claims against the store. (C) Yes, because the prior falls occurred on the same ramp under substantially similar wet conditions and tend to show a dangerous condition and notice. (D) Yes, because any prior accident on a defendant's premises is relevant to the owner's notice of danger.
Answer: (C). The prior falls match the plaintiff's accident in place, mechanism, and weather, satisfying the substantial-similarity foundation. They are offered to prove the ramp's dangerous condition and the store's notice — permitted purposes under FRE 401–403 — not to prove a careless disposition.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) mislabels the evidence; it targets the condition of the ramp and the store's knowledge, not anyone's general character or propensity.
- (B) invents a requirement; the foundation is substantial similarity plus a proper purpose, not prior litigation or formal claims.
- (D) is fatally overbroad; dissimilar accidents elsewhere on the premises fail the substantial-similarity requirement and invite FRE 403 exclusion.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking every past accident either always counts or never counts. Only look-alike accidents, offered for the right job, come in.
