You Are Not in This Alone - Evidence of Other Accidents

             One of the most important battles in any product liability/machine accident case is the fight to obtain discovery from the manufacturer relating to prior accidents.  This information is vital at trial to show the jury that: (a) the defendant was aware of a problem with the design of the product; and (b) that the plaintiff was not the only person ever hurt by this product.   This is particularly important when the case involves a product that has been on the market for a long time because the defendant wants to say to the jury that you were the “only one” injured on one of the thousands of machines they produced over the last 50 years.  The clear implication is that the plaintiff suing a manufacturer because of a defective product got hurt because he/she was “stupid” rather than due to a defective design.  

            Evidence of other accidents occurring on admittedly similar model machines is admissible at trial to establish the defendant’s knowledge of the defect in the design and the dangerous nature of the machines.  Courts have consistently held that evidence of prior accidents is proper "to establish that the condition was dangerous and that defendant had notice of it before plaintiff's injury."  Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co., 67 N.Y.2d 328, 336, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696, 701, 493 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1986). 

            This concept is so effective at trial that manufacturers fight very hard to limit the information they disclose.  First, they attempt to limit the scope of discovery to the exact same model number involved in the plaintiff’s accident.  Second, they attempt to limit the timeframe for the discovery.  Finally, they try to argue that all of the other accidents are different from the plaintiff’s case.  To force disclosure of accidents involving “other models” it is important to show that even though they model name/number differs they are essentially the same design.  Often, a manufacturer makes different sizes of the same machine.  In addition, model names/numbers may change over the years with cosmetic changes (sometimes as trivial as changing the color); or with changes to the user manual.  This is particularly true in cases involving industrial machines that may be unchanged for decades. 

            The argument that the hordes of other accidents are different from the plaintiff’s case is often the most difficult because we are usually relying on the information provided by the manufacturer.  However, the plaintiff does not need to prove that each prior accident occurred “exactly” like his/hers – only that the prior accidents were substantially similar to the current case.  Therefore, if ten other people were hurt pushing meat into a grinding machine the jury should be allowed to hear it (regardless of the particulars of any one case).  This evidence is so important in the litigation of defective products and machines because it changes the theme from the plaintiff was the only “stupid” person to get hurt to “this was just an accident waiting to happen” because the defendant refused to protect people from this dangerous machine.