Instead, the focus of our analysis has been whether the proffered evidence is relevant to the issues at trial. See Cherry v. D.S. Nash Constr. Co., 252 Va. 241, 244-45, 475 S.E.2d 794, 796-97 (1996); Spurlin v. Richardson, 203 Va. 984, 989-90, 128 S.E.2d 273, 277-78 (1962); Jackson, 179 Va. at 650, 20 S.E.2d at 492. The reasoning we articulated in Jackson is persuasive in resolving the issue before us. There, a plaintiff brought a negligence action for personal injuries he sustained when the truck in which he was a passenger collided with a train.

Evidence that a defendant was negligent on a prior occasion simply has no relevance or bearing upon whether the defendant was negligent during the occasion that is the subject of the litigation. Cherry v. D.S. Nash Construction Co., 252 Va. 241, 244, 475 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1996).         In this case, the issues before the jury were whether Dr. Ghramm performed an abdominal hysterectomy upon the plaintiff in accordance with the applicable standards of care and whether Dr. Ghramm obtained her informed consent for that procedure.

" Davis v. Colgin, 219 Va. 5, 7, 244 S.E.2d 750, 751 (1978). Accord Cherry v. D.S. Nash Constr. Co., 252 Va. 241, 246, 475 S.E.2d 794, 797 (1996);Galbraith v. Fleming, 245 Va. 173, 175, 427 S.E.2d 187, 188 (1993). In Phillips v. Schools, 211 Va. 19, 175 S.E.2d 279 (1970), the plaintiff's attorney sought to cross-examine the defendant about a prior statement by making specific reference to an accident report.