08/14/2026
A public entity may call a location safe because no similar accident happened there before. That fact may be relevant. It does not end the analysis.
In a dangerous-condition-of-public-property case, prior accidents can help establish notice, the existence of a dangerous condition, and foreseeability. But getting that evidence before the jury depends on why it is being offered.
When prior accidents are used to prove a dangerous condition, courts require a stricter showing that they involved the same hazard mechanism. When they are offered to prove notice, the standard is more relaxed. The question becomes whether the earlier information should have drawn the entity’s attention to the danger.
Timing matters too. A later accident may help prove the condition was dangerous, but it cannot establish what the entity knew before the plaintiff was injured.
The defense’s “no prior accidents” argument deserves the same scrutiny. An absence of similar accidents is one factor, not a complete answer. Aggregated collision data that does not match the hazard at issue should not be treated as proof of safety. And when an entity knew about a physical deficiency or failed to maintain a reasonable inspection system, the lack of an earlier injury does not necessarily defeat notice.
In his new Advocate Magazine article, HLF attorney Scott E. Boyer explains the substantial-similarity rule, its limits, and the record lawyers should build through SWITRS data, public-records requests, claims histories, expert testimony, and motions in limine.
Read “Getting ‘Prior Accidents’ Admitted in Cases Against Public Entities” at the link in bio.
