Lawrence v. Oregon State Fair Council, 525 P.3d 464

Background

Plaintiff slipped on wet aluminum bleachers at the Oregon State Fair and sued the Oregon State Fair Council for negligence (unsafe bleachers, lack of supervision/maintenance).
Defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence that an 8–10 year‑old girl had slipped in the same area and about the same time, citing OEC 403 (minimal probative value, unfair prejudice, and unverifiable/self‑serving source).
Plaintiff’s written response said he would testify he saw the girl fall and argued the other‑accident evidence was probative of dangerous condition and notice; plaintiff said the lack of the girl’s testimony did not outweigh probative value.
The trial court granted defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude the evidence but said it would reconsider if the topic came up at trial; at trial plaintiff asked reconsideration after defendant’s questioning allegedly opened the door; the court adhered to exclusion, citing lack of independent indicia of reliability and ‘‘self‑serving’’ testimony.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff failed to preserve the evidentiary issue; the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding preservation was satisfied and remanding to the Court of Appeals to decide admissibility on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of appellate review of exclusion	Lawrence argued he preserved: he opposed the in limine motion in writing, renewed the issue at trial when the door was opened, and responded to the court’s concerns	Oregon State Fair argued plaintiff failed to identify the specific legal ground for the court’s ruling and should have sought clarification	Court held plaintiff preserved the issue: plaintiff responded to defendant’s OEC 403 motion and to the court’s statements; if defendant had a new basis it should have clarified it; remanded for merits
Admissibility of other‑accident evidence under OEC 403	Evidence of another fall is probative of dangerous condition and notice; corroborating witnesses affect weight not admissibility	Evidence has minimal probative value, is vague/unverifiable and unfairly prejudicial because it’s ‘‘self‑serving’’ and the girl is unavailable	Court did not decide the merits; remanded to Court of Appeals to evaluate OEC 403 balancing on the record
Whether trial court excluded for a different legal ground (e.g., OEC 602/personal knowledge) and whether defendant may rely on that on appeal	Lawrence: defendant relied only on OEC 403 at trial; if defendant believed in a different basis it had the duty to raise it then	Defendant suggested the court’s ‘‘form of the evidence’’ comment could imply lack of personal knowledge	Court: reliability concerns can factor into OEC 403; defendant cannot now obtain benefit of an unargued ground on appeal without meeting prerequisites; plaintiff’s preservation was adequate

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (preservation requirement for objections)
Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 359 Or 610 (need to describe substance and purpose of proffered evidence to preserve exclusion challenge)
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (right‑for‑the‑wrong‑reason principle and prerequisites to rely on a different ground on appeal)
State v. Haugen, 349 Or 174 (party’s responsibility to renew or clarify objections at trial)
State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183 (no ambush; parties must have opportunity to meet opposing arguments)
State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724 (reliability of evidence can affect probative value under OEC 403)