Bayshore Co. v. Pruitt

1. The majority opinion concludes that this court need not “engage in an esoteric discussion of exactly how much similarity must exist between a prior and subsequent incident in order for the former to qualify as admissible evidence of a landowner’s prior knowledge in a suit based upon the latter.” That conclusion frankly baffles this writer.

In this case, the appellants moved for summary judgment, relying primarily upon the intervening criminal act doctrine, and the appellee opposed that motion with her tender of evidence of 17 prior criminal incidents that had occurred in the same apartment…