## Facts

- Jerry Jones, a recently hired refuse-collection worker, was injured while riding on a side-loading refuse collection and compaction machine manufactured by Pak-Mor.
- Jones had received limited instruction on a different (rear-loading) machine and none on the side-loading machine involved in the accident; the truck driver was also newly hired.
- Jones stood on the driver’s side running board between pick-up points, facing the machine and holding a grab iron.
- Jones and his wife sued Pak-Mor alleging defective design, asserting negligence and strict products liability theories.
- Before trial, the court granted Jones’s motion to exclude evidence offered by Pak-Mor that no prior similar accidents had occurred involving the product.
- A jury returned a verdict for Jones; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a product has had no prior similar accidents is categorically inadmissible in an Arizona product-liability action.
2. If not categorically inadmissible, what foundational showing is required before such “negative accident history” evidence may be admitted.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Pak-Mor’s proffered absence-of-prior-accidents evidence in this case.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Jones.
- The court rejected a per se rule excluding absence-of-prior-accidents evidence offered by a defendant.
- The court held such evidence may be admissible if the proponent lays an adequate foundation and the trial court finds its probative value is not substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice or confusion.
- The court concluded Pak-Mor failed to establish the necessary foundation; therefore, exclusion of the evidence was within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of no prior similar accidents is not inherently inadmissible; admissibility depends on relevance, foundation, and discretionary balancing.
- A proper foundation generally requires:
  - substantial similarity between prior uses/conditions and the accident conditions;
  - a showing that, if similar accidents occurred, the proponent likely would have learned of them (e.g., through reporting practices, warranty claims, customer contact);
  - sufficient duration and volume of product use to give the absence of accidents meaningful probative value.
- Even with foundation, the trial court may exclude the evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue consumption of time (Rule 403-type balancing).
- Appellate review of admission or exclusion of such evidence is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Arizona permits absence-of-prior-accidents evidence in product-liability cases when the proponent shows substantially similar conditions, meaningful opportunity for accidents to occur and be reported, and likely notice to the proponent, subject to trial-court balancing; because Pak-Mor did not make that foundational showing, the plaintiff’s judgment was affirmed.


Jones v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 145 Ariz. 121, 700 P.2d 819 (Ariz. 1985)