However, "`[a]n abuse of discretion can occur where the district court applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment.'" Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States. v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2005)). This case presents a unique question: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by incorrectly applying the doctrine of substantial similarity to test whether Mitsubishi's demonstrative evidence was relevant to the issues in the case.
Although Florida courts generally continue to rely on the consumer-expectation test, some courts have observed that "there may . . . be products that are too complex for a logical application of the consumer-expectation standard." See Force, 879 So. 2d at 106; Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2005). At least one District Court of Appeal in Florida has rejected the consumer-expectation test entirely.
Although Florida courts generally continue to rely on the consumer-expectation test, some courts have observed that “there may ... be products that are too complex for a logical application of the consumer-expectation standard.” See Force, 879 So.2d at 106 ; Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir.2005). At least one District Court of Appeal in Florida has rejected the consumer-expectation test entirely.
The district court has broad discretion in controlling the evidence presented at trial, including the decision whether to exclude cumulative evidence. Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir.2005). If the qualifications and proposed testimony of Dr. Wickramasinghe and Dr. Olbricht were exactly identical, as Abbott suggests, the court would not allow both witnesses to testify, because doing so would waste its own time and that of the jury.
Generally, the doctrine of substantial similarity applies in products liability claims when a party attempts to introduce evidence of prior accidents, to recreate the accident involving the defendant's product, to show notice of defect, magnitude of the danger involved, the defendant's ability to correct a known defect, or the lack of safety for intended uses. See Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Mitsubishi admittedly did not attempt to recreate the accident.
The test does not apply where the evidence is "pointedly dissimilar" from the event at issue and "not offered to reenact the accident." Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
Inherent in this standard "is the firm recognition that there are difficult evidentiary rulings that turn on matters uniquely within the purview of the district court, which has first-hand access to documentary evidence and is physically proximate to testifying witnesses and the jury." Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation and citation omitted).III.
"[I]n the Eleventh Circuit, the admission of other incidents is generally governed by the federal substantial similarity doctrine, not state law." Colp v. Ford Motor Co., 279 Ga.App. 280, 630 S.E.2d 886, 890 (2006) (citing Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005) and Heath v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 126 F.3d 1391, 1395-96 (11th Cir. 1997)); Heath, 126 F.3d at 1396 ("Under this circuit's controlling precedent regarding diversity jurisdiction cases, the admissibility of evidence is a procedural issue, and therefore is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence."). In Tran, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explained the "substantial similarity doctrine" as follows:
When the district court abuses its discretion, "an erroneous evidentiary ruling is a basis for reversal only if the complaining party's substantial rights were affected." Proctor v. Fluor Enters., Inc., 494 F.3d 1337, 1352 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005)). The party asserting error bears the burden of proving his substantial rights were affected.
"Inherent in this abuse of discretion standard is the firm recognition that there are difficult evidentiary rulings that turn on matters uniquely within the purview of the district court, which has first-hand access to documentary evidence and is physically proximate to testifying witnesses and the jury." Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, alteration omitted). Evidence of claimants' settlement with Peak certainly had some probative value.