Evidence Of Prior Incidents/Injuries Not Impermissibly Admitted By California Trial Judge

The Court of Appeal of California (4th Division) affirmed a jury verdict in favor of two plaintiffs who, while not wearing any wetsuit bottoms or similar protective clothing, sustained permanent injuries when falling off the back of a three-passenger watercraft.  A jury returned a verdict against the watercraft manufacturer, the owner of the personal watercraft, and the operator of the watercraft (each was one-third liable).  The jury awarded one plaintiff $3.385 million in damages, including past and future medical expenses and past and future noneconomic losses, plus $1.5 million in punitive damages.  The other plaintiff received an award of $1.063 million in addition to $1.5 million in punitive damages.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the evidence in the record was not sufficient to support the jury’s causation and punitive damages findings, made under federal maritime law.  The defendants also contended that the trial court erred by refusing to reduce the punitive damages award.  The appellate court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that, at the time of the accident, the manufacturer had notice of previous claims of similar injuries to passengers but excluded the manufacturer’s evidence to show that the causes of these previous claims were not substantially similar to the plaintiffs’ accident.

On the evidentiary issue, the appellate court emphasized that the evidence of prior claims was relevant to show that the manufacturer knew of a potential defect in the watercraft based on other, “relatively recent” incidents.  As the appellate court noted, “To admit such evidence, plaintiffs were not required to show ‘identical conditions’ between the various incidents; rather, ‘substantial similarity is normally sufficient,’ and this determination is primarily the function of the trial judge.”