Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council, 508 P.3d 42

Plaintiff slipped on uncovered metal bleachers at the Oregon State Fair after wiping them off; he sued the Oregon State Fair Council for negligence.
Plaintiff alleged that, within about 90–120 seconds after his fall, a young girl slipped on the same bleacher in the same manner.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude testimony about the other fall; the court granted the motion but said it would reconsider if the issue arose at trial.
During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned whether plaintiff’s elderly mother had fallen; the court concluded that defense had "opened the door" to testimony about the other fall.
The court nonetheless excluded evidence of the young girl’s fall because plaintiff and his family (the proposed witnesses) had a "self‑serving interest" and the court found that form of evidence inappropriate; plaintiff did not object to or ask the court to clarify that ruling.
On appeal, plaintiff argued the court erred under OEC 403 in excluding the evidence; the Court of Appeals held the claim was unpreserved and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in excluding evidence of a subsequent similar fall after concluding defendant opened the door	Evidence of the other fall was relevant and became more necessary once defense suggested plaintiff’s mother did not fall; exclusion under OEC 403 was erroneous	The other-fall evidence was minimally probative and outweighed by unfair prejudice; exclusion was proper	Claim unpreserved: plaintiff failed to challenge the court’s stated basis ("form of evidence"/self-serving testimony) or request balancing; appellate review denied
Whether preservation requirement was satisfied to allow appellate OEC 403 review	Preservation satisfied by plaintiff’s in limine briefing and argument after court said door was opened	Preservation lacking because plaintiff never objected to the court’s specific rationale or asked for an OEC 403 balancing on the record	Court has independent duty to assess preservation; plaintiff did not preserve the OEC 403 argument

State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (trial-court error must be preserved; appellate courts independently assess preservation)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (preservation principle and requirement to present issues to trial court)
State v. Weaver, 367 Or. 1 (preservation doctrine is prudential; depends on procedural fairness)
State v. Kelley, 293 Or. App. 90 (preservation applies to OEC 403 balancing)
State v. Hagner, 284 Or. App. 711 (failure to request balancing renders claim unpreserved)
State v. Anderson, 363 Or. 392 (trial court must make sufficient record under Mayfield; party must request further explanation if needed)
State v. Mayfield, 302 Or. 631 (recording trial court’s reasons facilitates appellate review)