Expert Witness Blog
In the recent premises liability case of Brower v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC et al – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – March 23rd, 2018, the role of a Walking & Working Surfaces Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of liability and admissibility of expert testimony.
Background and Facts
The plaintiff, Ms. Brower, suffered significant injuries after allegedly tripping near the northern border of a mat placed at the entrance of the defendant’s grocery store. The incident resulted in a broken hip and shoulder. Brower asserted that the mat’s placement and condition created a hazardous walking surface, implicating the store’s responsibility to maintain safe entryways for customers.
Parties and Claims
Plaintiff Brower brought suit against Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC, alleging negligence in maintaining safe walking and working surfaces at the store entrance. The defense contested both liability and the admissibility of the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony, seeking to exclude it under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Expert’s Role and Methodology
The plaintiff retained Russell Kendzior, a nationally recognized Walking & Working Surfaces Expert Witness, to analyze the incident. Kendzior’s methodology included:
– Reviewing surveillance video of the incident.
– Examining portions of the record and discovery materials.
– Analyzing the incident report.
– Applying industry standards, including those from the National Floor Safety Institute.
Kendzior’s report concluded that Sprouts failed to:
– Implement appropriate safety procedures and policies for mat placement.
– Train employees on proper matting practices.
– Inspect matting for hazards.
– Provide a safe walking surface at the entrance.
– Comply with recognized industry standards for walking surface safety.
He specifically identified a hazardous condition at the northwest corner of the mat, citing either a buckle or a border strip as the tripping hazard.
Daubert and Reliability Analysis
The defense moved to exclude Kendzior’s testimony, arguing that his opinions on causation and the failure to maintain a safe entrance were speculative and lacked a factual basis. They challenged the reliability of his methodology, particularly his measurements of the mat’s height difference, which were taken a year after the incident and could not be precisely quantified.
The court conducted a thorough Daubert analysis, focusing on relevance, reliability, and the expert’s qualifications. The court found:
– Kendzior’s testimony regarding industry standards, inspection practices, and matting procedures was relevant and based on sufficient facts and data.
– His methodology—relying on video evidence, incident reports, and established safety standards—was deemed reliable for assessing the adequacy of the store’s safety practices.
– Arguments about the timing and precision of measurements went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
However, the court partially granted the defense’s motion to exclude. Kendzior’s opinion that the plaintiff tripped on “something”—either a buckle or border—was excluded. The court reasoned that Kendzior was not qualified as a biomechanical engineer or accident reconstructionist and that his causation opinion lacked a scientific basis and would not assist the jury.
Impact of Expert Testimony on the Outcome
Kendzior’s admissible testimony provided the jury with authoritative insight into industry standards for walking surface safety and the adequacy of the store’s inspection and maintenance practices. His analysis of mat placement and safety procedures was allowed, enabling the plaintiff to present evidence of the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with recognized safety protocols.
The exclusion of Kendzior’s causation opinion narrowed the scope of expert testimony, requiring the plaintiff to rely on other evidence to establish the precise cause of the fall. Nevertheless, the expert’s admissible opinions on safety standards and practices were instrumental in framing the issues for the jury and supporting the plaintiff’s theory of negligence.
This case underscores the critical role of a Walking & Working Surfaces Expert Witness in premises liability litigation, particularly in establishing industry standards and evaluating the adequacy of safety measures. The court’s Daubert analysis demonstrates the importance of expert qualifications, reliable methodology, and the distinction between admissibility and weight of evidence in federal litigation.