On December 12, 2020, Lynda S. Rowland and Patricia M. Stallcup planned to dine at the Outback Steakhouse in Shreveport. Rowland, who arrived first, slipped while walking to a small booth in the lounge area but managed to break her fall by reaching and grabbing the back of an adjacent booth. Shortly after, Stallcup arrived and also slipped as she approached the booth where Rowland was waiting. Stallcup fell to the floor onto her knees. Both individuals suffered personal injuries from the slips, with Rowland primarily to her knees and Stallcup to her ankle and back.
The Plaintiffs individually initiated legal actions against the Defendants in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, State of Louisiana. The Defendants subsequently removed the suits to Louisiana Western District Court, citing diversity of citizens. The Court consolidated the separate suits.
The Defendants, namely Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Bloomin Brands, Inc. d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, and National Retail Properties, L.P., argued that Rowland was in proximity to the booth where she allegedly slipped but did not fall. Rowland stated she neither saw anything on the ground nor touched the floor or the bottom of her shoes. She testified that an Outback employee wiped the floor after her slip, and she observed nothing on the towel.
Stallcup, walking toward Rowland, fell at least one booth away from their original position. Initially, she fell on her knees and then landed on her buttocks. Neither Stallcup nor Rowland noticed anything on the floor before or after the incident. Stallcup was unaware of any residue on her knees, buttocks, or shoes. She testified that a different Outback employee cleaned the area where she fell, and neither of them observed anything on that towel.
To conclude, this slip and fall case involves two incidents that occurred on December 12, 2020, at the Outback Steakhouse restaurant in Shreveport, Louisiana. Plaintiffs Lynda Rowland and Patricia Stallcup claim that inadequate maintenance leading to a slippery floor caused their accidents and resulting injuries on that date. The Defendants, Outback Steakhouse, dispute these claims, contending, among other arguments, that no hazardous condition existed. Both parties presented expert testimony regarding causation under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B).
The Court had before it two Daubert Motions: firstly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood, and secondly, Defendants submitted a Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English. Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English.
Architecture Expert Witness
Mitchell Allen Wood, currently serving as the Principal at ArchitectniX APAC, brings a wealth of expertise to his role, grounded in a comprehensive educational background and extensive work experience. He has obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Louisiana State University and a Bachelor of architecture from Tulane University. He has further completed a Masters of Architecture from Tulane University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Maryland. Over the course of his career, Wood has been involved in numerous new, repair, and renovation projects, specifically in culinary and eating facilities. With a background in code enforcement and a keen understanding of restaurant environments, he possesses a thorough awareness of the safety requirements for pedestrian means of egress, emphasizing the need for hazard-free and secure pathways.
Safety Engineering Expert Witnesses
Jason T. English, is a seasoned professional engineering consultant who specializes in safety engineering, encompassing workplace safety, premises safety, product safety, safety management, and human factors/ergonomics. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Safety Engineering, both earned at Texas A&M University (College Station). He owns English Engineering Inc., which provides professional consultation services in the field of safety engineering, to include workplace safety, premises safety, product safety, and human factors/ergonomics.
Discussions by the Court
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, requiring the proponent to demonstrate that the expert’s knowledge will aid the trier of fact, the testimony is based on sufficient facts, the methods are reliable, and the application to the case is reliable. The Daubert factors, including testability, peer review, error rate, and general acceptance, guide the evaluation of reliability. The trial court acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring the testimony is both reliable and relevant. However, the Court’s role is not a replacement for the adversary system, and the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are emphasized. The proponent bears the burden of proving that the expert testimony meets Rule 702 requirements.
The Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of defense expert Mitchell Wood, alleging that his causation opinions were unreliable and that he lacked the necessary education and training as a safety engineer to qualify for giving opinions on floor maintenance. However, the Court, after evaluating Wood’s credentials and extensive experience, determined that he was qualified to testify as an expert in the case, including offering opinions on causation and floor safety. The Court highlighted Wood’s educational background, which included a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s and bachelor’s degrees in architecture. Furthermore, Wood held licenses in commercial construction, inspection, and architecture, and his 34 years of experience as a certified code review architect, licensed general contractor, licensed building inspector, and civil engineer were considered as additional qualifications for his role as an expert in the case.
The Court determined that Mitchell Wood’s opinions and report were grounded in sufficient facts and data. Upon review of the record, the Court found no mischaracterization of facts or use of inadmissible evidence in Wood’s work. It was observed that Wood had considered, for the most part, the same evidence that the Plaintiffs’ expert had reviewed. The Court advised the Plaintiffs to focus on robust cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence to contest Wood’s opinions. Additionally, the Court believed that Wood’s expert opinions would aid the jury in considering Section 2800.6(B). Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood was denied.
Defendants raised objections to the report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Jason English, arguing that it contained numerous speculative assumptions and conjectures without factual evidence to support them. The defense asserted that English’s report was unreliable and irrelevant to the elements required in Section 2800.6(B). Specifically, Defendants criticized English’s theories of causation related to grease build-up on the floor and the use of improper cleaning products, claiming that these theories would mislead and confuse the jury.
In response, Plaintiffs reiterated their focus on English’s report and introduced an affidavit from English, emphasizing factors relevant to determining whether the floor maintenance practices at Outback created an unreasonably dangerous condition. However, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the affidavit, contending that it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) as the additional information should have been included in English’s initial report.
After thorough review of the arguments presented in both defense motions, the Court acknowledged that presenting the affidavit in response to the defense Daubert motion was not ideal. However, the potential prejudice to the defense was considered to be mitigated by the trial date being reset to May 2024. The Court expressed the belief that Jason English’s explanations and opinions, covering various standards in the restaurant industry, technical aspects of floor cleaning fluids and methods, proper application, and the consequences of improper use, were grounded in sufficient factual evidence. The Court concluded that English’s testimony would assist the jury in evaluating the elements required under Section 2800.6(B). It was noted that the defense retained the option to conduct rigorous cross-examination, and jurors would be instructed to weigh English’s testimony appropriately based on the facts and testimony presented during the trial. Consequently, both Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English were denied.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood. Furthermore, the Court denied both Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English.
The Court has not arrived on an outcome for this case since the remaining issues involved in this case still await resolution.
Key Takeaways
In this slip and fall case stemming from incidents at an Outback Steakhouse, both parties presented expert testimony related to causation under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute. The Court addressed Daubert motions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony, focusing on the qualifications and reliability of the experts. Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of defense expert Mitchell Wood, citing his lack of requisite qualifications. However, the Court determined that Wood’s extensive experience and education qualified him to testify, and his opinions were grounded in sufficient facts. The Court encouraged vigorous cross-examination by the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, Defendants challenged the reliability and relevance of Plaintiffs’ expert, Jason English, arguing that his report contained speculative assumptions. On presenting an affidavit from English in response to the Daubert motion, the Court allowed it despite allegations that the affidavit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, stating that potential prejudice was mitigated by the trial date being reset. The Court deemed English’s opinions, covering restaurant industry standards and floor maintenance practices, grounded in sufficient factual evidence, and concluded that his testimony would aid the jury. Both experts’ testimonies were deemed admissible, underscoring the importance of thorough qualifications, reliability, and flexibility in applying Daubert principles in expert testimony admissibility.
Case Details
| Case Caption | Rowland v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., LLC |
| Docket Number | 5:22cv667 |
| Court | United States District Court, Louisiana Western |
| Citation | 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9648 |
| Order Date | January 18, 2024 |
Leave a Reply