A key issue in many slip and fall cases is whether a business owner knew or should have known of hazardous conditions on the premises.  One of the most compelling and persuasive types of evidence for juries in such a situation is evidence of prior similar slip and fall or trip and fall accidents at the Mississippi business establishment.  However, courts recognize that evidence of this kind can have a dramatic effect and will sometimes exclude such evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the prejudice it may cause.  If the evidence is not highly relevant to the specific accident in a personal injury lawsuit, the court may choose to exclude the evidence.  A Mississippi slip and fall case against Wal-Mart, Yoste v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 822 So. 2d 935 (Miss. 2002), provides insight into the analysis conducted by a Mississippi court when deciding whether to permit evidence of prior slip and fall accidents on the premises.

The Wal-Mart customer brought a personal injury lawsuit in Madison County for a slip and fall that occurred in the store’s parking lot.  The Mississippi slip and fall victim alleged that the store negligently maintained its parking lot. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the store.  The customer argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of previous accidents that had occurred in the store parking lot after other customers tripped on uneven pavement.  The court indicated that evidence of prior accidents is admissible only upon a showing of substantial similarity of conditions.  The key problem is that the customer was not sure what caused his fall.  Therefore, the court held the evidence of the prior accidents offered by the customer were too remote and dissimilar not to be prejudicial. The court also held that the evidence had questionable probative value since the customer could not conclusively state what caused him to fall.

The admission of the prior accidents often will be excluded if they are not in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff’s accident and/or the plaintiff is not able to establish that the hazards that caused the plaintiff’s fall are the same as in the prior accidents.  These past accidents may be excluded because they have little probative value given the lack of similarity between the accidents, and the risk that they will prejudice the jury into assuming that because past slip and falls were caused by uneven pavement that this accident must have been caused the same way.

The fundamental issue is that when prior accidents are offered as evidence in a Mississippi slip and fall lawsuit, the facts and circumstances of the prior slip and fall incident must strongly correlate to proving the existence of the dangerous condition in the case before the court.  Mississippi slip and fall cases generally are very fact intensive so it is critical to work with an experienced Mississippi slip and fall accident attorney who will carefully investigate the facts surrounding your slip and fall accident.

At Barrett Law PLLC, we represent slip and fall victims throughout the State of Mississippi.  We have built a reputation for providing diligent and compassionate legal representation to Mississippi injury victims based on zealous representation and empathy with our clients.  If you have been seriously injured in a slip and fall accident, we understand the physical, financial and emotional challenges that you are facing so call us today at 662-834-2376 to see how we can help.