not render the prior incident reports inadmissible. Shari had dropped her punitive-damage claim against Petersen. Shari’s claims concerned only the Walgreen pharmacy on Ingersoll itself, and not the willful and wanton conduct of any one particular employee. Shari clearly established proper foundation for admitting the incident reports. All the reports dealt with misfilling incidents that occurred at the Walgreen pharmacy on Ingersoll. See Oberreuter v. Orion Indus., Inc., 398 N.W.2d 206, 211 (Iowa App.1986) (noting that “Iowa cases in which evidence of similar accidents was admissible involved accidents at the same location as plaintiffs’ injury”). Moreover, most of the incidents occurred within a short, three-year period preceding the incident in question. See Harco, 669 So.2d at 881 (<HOLDING>); see also Lovick, 588 N.W.2d at 697 n. 5
holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years holding as relevant incident reports prepared by defendants employees within three years of the error in filling plaintiffs prescriptions holding that under arkansas law maximum duration of noncompete clause incident to employment agreement is three years