## Facts

- Snowmobile races were held in Knox County, Maine on February 8, 1969; Grevis Payson attended as a spectator.
- A racer lost control, left the track, and the snowmobile rolled over; a handlebar broke off while the engine continued running.
- As the racer moved the snowmobile away from the track, the machine escaped control and accelerated into the crowd, killing Grevis Payson.
- The plaintiff alleged negligent design/manufacture of the steering mechanism, claiming the handlebars were unable to withstand normal stress and were prone to break.
- The defendant contended the handlebars were properly designed and that abnormal stress from the crash caused the break.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting the manufacturer’s evidence that it had received no reports of similar handlebar failures in the same design.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding three items of the plaintiff’s proffered evidence, including other-accident and expert testimony offered to support negligent design.
3. Whether the proximate-cause instruction was erroneous and prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment for the manufacturer.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the manufacturer’s “absence of similar accidents” testimony based on the witness’s responsibilities and reporting system.
- The court upheld the exclusions of the plaintiff’s proffered evidence, emphasizing the need for substantial similarity and the trial judge’s discretion in evaluating other-accident proof.
- The court found the jury instructions, read as a whole, were not reasonably likely to mislead; any arguable flaw on proximate cause was harmless given the jury’s special verdict of no negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of the absence of similar accidents may be admitted to rebut a defect/negligence claim when a proper foundation shows that reports of such incidents would likely have been made and captured by the proponent’s reporting practices.
- Evidence of other accidents is admissible only upon a showing of substantial similarity of conditions; determinations of similarity, relevance, and risk of confusion or prejudice are committed largely to the trial court’s discretion.
- Instructional error warrants reversal only if, considering the charge as a whole, there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled; error may be harmless where the verdict rests on a threshold finding that defeats liability.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict in a wrongful-death product-liability case, holding that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in admitting foundation-supported “no prior reports” evidence, excluding inadequately supported other-accident and related testimony, or instructing the jury on proximate cause.


Payson v. Bombardier, Ltd., 435 A.2d 411 (Me. 1981)