Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Hawley v. Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00297 (D. Vt. 2018), the testimony of a Retail Store Design & Operations Expert Witness played a significant role in evaluating the safety and design of a store display involved in a premises liability claim.
Background of the Case
In 2013, the plaintiff, Mary Hawley, was shopping at a Hannaford supermarket in Middlebury, Vermont. While navigating the store aisles, her pant leg caught on a protruding wire hook from a spider rack display, causing her to fall and fracture her hip. Hawley filed a lawsuit against Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC, alleging that the store’s negligent design and maintenance of the display created a dangerous condition for customers.
Role of the Retail Store Design & Operations Expert Witness
To support her claim, Hawley retained Jerry Birnbach, a seasoned expert in retail store layout, safety, and merchandising practices. His responsibilities included evaluating whether the display in question complied with retail industry safety standards and whether the design posed a foreseeable risk to customers.
Key aspects of the expert’s analysis included:
-
Inspection of Display Design: Birnbach assessed the construction and positioning of the spider rack and found that its hooks extended into the walking path, creating a tripping hazard.
-
Industry Standards Review: He compared the display’s design to common safety practices used by national retail chains to minimize customer injury risk.
-
Hazard Identification: Birnbach identified the wire hook as a latent hazard—one not easily perceived by the average customer—especially for elderly or distracted shoppers.
Birnbach concluded that the spider rack violated accepted safety protocols in the retail industry and that the store should have anticipated the risk of injury from the protruding hook.
Court Proceedings and Findings
Hannaford Bros. moved to exclude Birnbach’s testimony, arguing that his conclusions were based on subjective opinion rather than technical or scientific knowledge. The court conducted a Daubert hearing to determine whether his testimony met the admissibility standards for expert witnesses.
While the court acknowledged Birnbach’s experience and qualifications, it partially limited his testimony. The judge ruled that Birnbach could speak to general retail safety practices and hazard recognition based on his background. However, the court excluded his opinion on the specific foreseeability of the incident—stating that the jury could determine this aspect using common sense without expert input.
Ultimately, the case was resolved prior to trial, but the court’s ruling on the scope of expert testimony underscored the fine line between helpful expertise and opinions that may intrude upon a jury’s role.
Legal Significance
The Hawley case illustrates the valuable role that expert witnesses can play in premises liability litigation involving retail stores. It also highlights how courts scrutinize expert testimony under evidentiary rules to ensure that opinions are based on specialized knowledge rather than mere observation.
In particular, the use of a Retail Store Design & Operations Expert Witness helped clarify the distinction between industry safety standards and what a reasonable customer might notice. While some parts of the expert’s testimony were excluded, his insights offered an important perspective on how retail environments can be designed and maintained to prevent accidents.
Conclusion
Hawley v. Hannaford Bros. Co. LLC serves as an example of how expert analysis can inform premises liability cases, especially those involving nuanced elements of retail store operations. A Retail Store Design & Operations Expert Witness can be instrumental in identifying non-obvious hazards, contextualizing retail practices, and reinforcing the importance of industry standards in protecting consumer safety.