![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Evidence of dissimilar accidents may be admitted when relevant to the witness's credibility.
Appellee individual was injured when a truck tire rim exploded. Appellee initiated action against appellant tire and rim manufacturers alleging negligence and strict liability based upon design and manufacturing defects and failure to warn. The court granted judgment in favor of appellee. Appellants contended that the district court erred in admitting evidence of other accidents involving the tire rims without showing a substantial similarity between the other accidents and appellee's accident.
Did the trial court err granting judgment in favor of the appellee?
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which granted judgment in favor of appellee individual in negligence and strict liability action against appellant tire and rim manufacturers. It held that, because appellants' expert witness testified that the product was generally safe, such witness's credibility could have been undermined by showing that the witness had knowledge of prior accidents caused by the product.