Kunsman v. Wawa, Inc., et al., 2023 WL 3778865 (Pa. Comm. Pl. Montg. Co. Jun. 2, 2023)

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a yellow-painted surface in the parking area located on the defendant’s premises. During discovery, the defendant produced a list of prior claims that involved slip and fall incidents that occurred within the vicinity of painted lines in parking lots at its locations. However, there was no evidence that any of these prior claims involved claims in which a slip and fall incident was caused by a painted line in the parking lots.

Prior to the civil trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the plaintiff from offering any evidence or testimony at trial relating to the prior claims. In ruling on the motion in limine, the trial court held that, out of all of the claims included in the list produced by the defendant, only one claim took place at the same property as the plaintiff’s incident. The trial court further found that the plaintiff failed to show that the prior claims on the list were sufficiently similar to the subject incident. As such, the trial court granted the motion in limine in part and held that, besides the one claim that occurred at the same location as the plaintiff’s incident, all other prior claims on the list were precluded.

After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for post-trial relief, arguing that the trial court had erred in excluding evidence of the prior claims. The trial court denied the motion for post-trial relief, and the plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In his appeal to the Superior Court, the plaintiff raised the same arguments as set forth in his motion for post-trial relief.

In its Rule 1925 opinion, relying on Valentine v. Acme Markets, Inc., 687 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Super. 1997), the trial court held that:

[e]vidence of prior accidents involving the same instrumentally is generally relevant to show that a defect or dangerous condition existed or that the defendant had knowledge of the defect . . . [; h]owever, this evidence is only admissible if the prior accident is sufficiently similar to the incident involving the plaintiff which occurred under sufficiently similar circumstances.

The trial court reasoned that “[t]he burden is on the party introducing the evidence to establish this similarity before the evidence is admitted.” The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the other claims were sufficiently similar to the subject incident under sufficiently similar circumstances. As such, in the absence of the requisite sufficiently similar evidence, the claims were properly precluded.