Plаintiff-appellant’s stated question No. 1 has been duly accepted by defendant-appellee. See section 1 of former Court Rule No 68 (1945), now GCR 1963, 814.1. Our decision is that such stated question should be answered in the affirmative and that the appealed judgment fоr defendant-appellee must be reversed for prejudicial rejection of admissible testimony.
The question sufficiently indicates the nature of the case, plaintiff’s proffer of rejected testimony, and the trial judge’s ruling thereon. It reads:
“In an action to recover damages for injuries received as a result of a fall through a holе in a trailer floor, is evidence of a prior fall by another party through the samе hole and evidence of the prior condition of the floor admissible to prоve the existence and nature of the hole, knowledge on the part of the оwner, and negligence, where there is evidence that the hole was covered by the owner, but that the covering lasted only a short period of time?”
We need only аdd these facts: The hole as alleged was in the floor of a “converted cаttle trailer.” The trailer was furnished by defendant for use by plaintiff’s employer and the lattеr’s employees. The case factually is therefore much akin to
Erickson
v.
Soyars,
That our pertinent decisions once were in conflict is a fact of judicial history. That the Court ultimately came to grips with the situation appears from due examination of
Branch
v.
Klatt,
“Subject to thе general requirements of similarity of conditions, reasonable proximity in time, and avоidance of confusion of issues, the courts have generally recognized that evidence of the occurrence of a prior similar accident at the sаme place as the accident in suit has some tendency to establish a dangerous or defective condition at the place in ques- *476 tiou and may be admitted for this purpose, in actions where the dangerous condition of tbe place in question is at issue.”
Under tbe foregoing rule tbe rejected testimony of witnesses Martinez, Morgаn, George Nisonger, and Bobert Nisonger should have been formally received in evidеnce and left to jury consideration. Bejection thereof constituted reversible error. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed and the case is rеmanded for new trial. Costs to plaintiff.
Notes
In view of recent criticism of expressions as in the final quoted phrase (see
Frederick
v.
City of Detroit,
“Thе rule now seems to be established that evidence of prior accidents at the same place and arising from the same cause is admissible not only to show defendant’s notice or knowledge of the defective or dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident, but to show the defendant’s negligence on the theory defendant, having notiee or knowledge of the defect, is held to the duty оf exercising such care as would a reasonably pi-udent person having such notice or knowledge.”