Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In the realm of playground safety litigation, the involvement of a Playground Safety Expert Witness can be pivotal in determining the outcome of a case. A notable example is the case of K.M. v. Deer Park Union Free School District, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 695 (Feb. 19, 2019), which underscores the critical role such experts play in legal proceedings concerning playground injuries.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred during a lunch recess when K.M., a minor student at John Quincy Adams Elementary School, was playing on a piece of playground equipment known as the “Spider” climbing apparatus. This structure consisted of horizontal bars designed for climbing and play. K.M. climbed atop the horizontal bars, sat while holding onto the bars on each side, and hung her feet through an opening. She then attempted to jump down through the open space where her feet had been dangling, but in the process, she hit her teeth on one of the bars and landed on the ground, sustaining injuries.

In September 2022, Pamela Morrison, a 74-year-old Arizona resident, visited Universal Studios Hollywood’s Wizarding World of Harry Potter with her grandson. As part of their visit, they decided to experience the popular attraction “Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey.” While attempting to board the ride, Morrison encountered difficulty with the safety harness, which failed to secure properly. Ride operators informed her that she would not be able to ride and directed her to exit the moving walkway.

As she attempted to step from the moving walkway onto solid ground, Morrison lost her footing and fell. The incident resulted in severe injuries, including a fracture in her lower back and a significant muscle tear around her hip. The aftermath of the fall required extensive medical care and left Morrison with long-term mobility challenges and chronic pain.

Following the incident, Morrison filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios Hollywood, alleging negligence in the operation of the attraction and the unsafe design of its exit system. Her legal team argued that Universal failed to ensure her safety when the harness malfunctioned and that the moving walkway should have been stopped to allow her to exit safely. Furthermore, they contended that park employees were more concerned with keeping the ride on schedule—operating at an estimated 1,800 riders per hour—than they were with attending to a vulnerable guest.

In the case of Price v. Carnival Cruise Lines, No. 20-cv-20621-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla. 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida addressed the admissibility of expert testimony in a maritime personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff retained Dr. John H. Shim as an expert witness to testify regarding the injuries sustained during a cruise. The court’s analysis provides insight into the role and evaluation of a Cruise Lines Expert Witness in such cases.

Case Background

The plaintiff initiated a maritime personal injury action against Carnival Cruise Lines, alleging injuries suffered on February 28, 2019, while aboard the M/V Carnival Valor. To support her claims, the plaintiff retained Dr. John H. Shim, an orthopedic surgeon, as an expert witness. Dr. Shim was expected to testify about the plaintiff’s injuries, his review of her medical records, diagnostic tests, findings, diagnosis, prognosis, the need for future medical treatment, and the associated costs. He was also anticipated to opine that the plaintiff sustained permanent injury as a result of the incident and that the medical services rendered were reasonable, necessary, and related to the incident.

In the case of Food & Water Watch, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 3:17-cv-02162-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed a significant environmental health dispute concerning the fluoridation of public drinking water. The plaintiffs alleged that the addition of fluoride to drinking water posed an unreasonable risk of neurotoxic harm, particularly to infants and young children. Expert testimony played a pivotal role in this case, with both parties presenting scientific evidence to support their positions.

Case Background

In November 2016, a coalition of organizations and individuals, including Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water. The petitioners argued that fluoride exposure is linked to neurodevelopmental issues, such as reduced IQ in children. The EPA denied the petition in February 2017, leading the plaintiffs to seek judicial review of the denial.

In the case of Burke v. Glanz, No. 4:11-CV-00720-JED-PJC (N.D. Okla. 2017), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma addressed a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the 2011 death of Elliott Williams in the Tulsa County Jail. The testimony of expert witnesses was pivotal in establishing the circumstances leading to Williams’s death and determining liability.

Case Background

Elliott Williams, a 37-year-old Army veteran, was arrested on October 21, 2011, for misdemeanor obstruction of a police officer and subsequently detained at the Tulsa County Jail. During his incarceration, Williams suffered a severe injury resulting in paralysis. Despite his evident medical distress, jail staff neglected to provide necessary medical care, leading to his death on October 27, 2011. The medical examiner determined that Williams died from complications of vertebrospinal injuries due to blunt force trauma, compounded by starvation and dehydration.

In the case of Philmar Dairy, LLC et al. v. Armstrong Farms et al., No. 2:18-cv-00530 (D.N.M. July 12, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico addressed the admissibility of expert testimony from a Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness in a contractual dispute involving the alleged destruction of hay by lightning-induced fire.

Case Background

Philmar Dairy, LLC and associated plaintiffs entered into a contract with Armstrong Farms to purchase over 2,500 tons of alfalfa hay. The plaintiffs paid in advance, but the hay was never delivered. Armstrong Farms claimed that a lightning strike caused a fire, destroying the hay intended for delivery. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fabricated the fire to conceal their failure to deliver the hay. To support their claim of lightning-induced fire, the defendants retained Dr. Elizabeth Austin, a certified consulting meteorologist, to provide expert testimony on the likelihood of lightning strikes near the hay storage area during the relevant period.

In the case of Diaz v. United States, No. 21-14, 602 U.S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of expert testimony concerning a defendant’s mental state in criminal proceedings. While the case did not specifically involve a Visibility Expert Witness, it has significant implications for the scope of expert testimony in criminal trials.

Case Background

Delilah Diaz was apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border after authorities discovered over 54 pounds of methamphetamine concealed in her vehicle. Charged with importing methamphetamine, a crime requiring proof of knowing possession, Diaz contended that she was unaware of the drugs hidden in her car. To counter this defense, the prosecution introduced testimony from a special agent who stated that drug traffickers typically do not entrust large quantities of drugs to individuals without their knowledge. Diaz was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 84 months in prison.

In the case of Mace v. AAA Cooper Transportation, No. 23-2341 (La. Ct. App. 2023), the Louisiana Court of Appeal addressed the critical role of expert testimony in a vehicular accident involving a passenger car and a commercial truck. The involvement of a Traffic/Highway Safety Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

The incident occurred in Alexandria, Louisiana, where Chelsea Mace was driving her car and stopped behind an 18-wheeler operated by Sherman Turner, an employee of AAA Cooper Transportation. Turner, while attempting to turn around, reversed the truck into Mace’s car, causing her to sustain back injuries that required lumbar fusion surgery. Mace claimed the truck driver was at fault for not ensuring the path was clear before reversing.

In the case of Grajeda v. Vail Resorts Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00165 (D. Vt. Mar. 23, 2023), the United States District Court for the District of Vermont addressed the admissibility of expert testimony in a negligence lawsuit stemming from a skiing accident. The involvement of a Skiing & Snowboarding Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

On December 19, 2019, plaintiff Richard Grajeda was skiing at Okemo Mountain Resort, operated by defendants Vail Resorts Inc., Vail Resorts Management Company, and Okemo Limited Liability Company. While descending a beginner trail named “Open Slope,” Grajeda fell and collided with a snowmaking station situated in the center of the trail. The accident resulted in severe injuries, rendering him paraplegic. Grajeda filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that the snowmaking station was inadequately padded and improperly placed, creating a hazardous condition.

In the case of In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004 (S.D. Ill. 2024), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois addressed the admissibility of expert testimony in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning allegations that exposure to the herbicide paraquat caused plaintiffs to develop Parkinson’s disease. The involvement of a Products Liability Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

Paraquat is a widely used herbicide in the United States, primarily applied for weed and grass control. Plaintiffs in this MDL alleged that exposure to paraquat, manufactured by Syngenta and distributed by Chevron, led to the development of Parkinson’s disease. They claimed that the defendants failed to warn users about the potential neurological risks associated with paraquat exposure.