Hi - What written argument would be best for the case below?

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

JACOB SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEEWALD, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

/

CASE NO.: 2020-CA-005959

APPLICABLE LAW

Section 90.401, Florida Statutes

Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a fact at issue in a case.

Section 90.402, Florida Statutes

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by [Section 90.403].

Section 90.403, Florida Statutes

Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value (helpfulness) is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (harmfulness)....

State v. Williams (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)

Holding: Most evidence will be prejudicial or damaging to the party against whom it is offered. The question under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes is not simply whether there is "some" prejudice but instead whether substantial unfair prejudice will result, outweighing the probative value.

Marcus v. Jones (Fla. 2009)

Trial Courts have broad discretion to decide the admissibility of evidence at trial. The Florida Supreme Court will not disturb these decisions unless grave error is found.

Great American Train Car Conglomerate v. Ellis (Fla. 1930)

Plaintiff may not use evidence of other wrongs or bad acts committed by Great American Trains, as, during this very uncertain time, such corporations hold together the torn fabric of our fragile economy. As such, evidence of other bad actions, regardless of their similarity to those in the instant action, shall never be admitted by courts of this state.

Owens v. Hondor Motors (Fla. 1999)

In a civil case, evidence of other wrongs or bad acts are generally considered irrelevant and therefore inadmissible at trial. However, evidence of other similar incidents ("OSIs") may be admitted if Plaintiff can show the evidence: (1) involves the same or a substantially similar product, (2) which caused or is likely to cause substantially similar injuries, and (3) is relevant to the specific claims at issue. See 90.401, 90.402 and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019).

Bridgerock Tires, Inc. v. Johansson (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)

In tread separation and rollover case, Defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of five (5) other tread separation and roll over incidents, citing to the Great American and Owens decisions. Defendant argued these other (prior) tread separations involved different vehicles of various sizes and dimensionseach with a different center of gravity and dissimilar "propensity" to roll over.

Holding: Evidence was properly admitted as Plaintiff successfully argued that each of the three Owens elements were satisfied by the evidence available. Specifically, Plaintiff showed [1] the same model tire failed [2] causing similar injuries in a way that [3] supported Plaintiffs allegations in the instant case. We find no support for the proposition, advocated by Defendant, that the same "size" vehicle must be involved in order to admit evidence of a prior incident.

Johnston and Johnston, LLP v. Myers (Texas App. Ct. 2006)

Trial Court granted Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of other incidents, finding them dissimilar. Without discussing the matter further, we find no error and affirm.

Section 401.3, Florida Standard Jury Instructions (2019)

The burden of proof for admitting evidence in a civil case is "greater weight of the evidence." Greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the evidence.

Section 403.7(b), Florida Standard Jury Instructions (2019)

A product is unreasonably dangerous because of its design if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect: (1) when used as intended or (2) when used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer, including prior actual knowledge.