Architectural Design Expert Witness' Opinions on Retail Safety Excluded

Architectural Design Expert Witness’ Opinions on Retail Safety Excluded

On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff Karen Morgan went shopping for her son at Defendant’s Dick’s Sporting Goods (“DSG”) store in Gaithersburg, Maryland. As she walked through the store, she stopped to look at a display of women’s clothing. After she stooped down to look at the clothes on the bottom shelf, she felt a sudden pain on the top of her head. When she looked around, she saw a sign laying on the ground beside her. The sign was a large but lightweight object. Morgan did not notice the sign before the incident and she does not know why it fell. No one saw the sign fall but a DSG employee heard a loud bang around the time it happened. Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured after Morgan was struck by the sign.

DSG filed a motion to exclude evidence from Plaintiffs’ liability expert, Jerry Birnbach, because his opinions are unreliable and speculative.

Architectural Design Expert Witness

Jerry Birnbach has bachelor of science degrees in architectural technology and architecture, and is a member of a number of professional organizations. He has experience as a quality control engineer, as a director of store planning, maintenance, and new store construction, and as an executive in charge of store design, display design, and retail safety.

Get the full story on challenges to Jerry Birnbach’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

Discussion by the Court

To begin with, Birnbach is a “retail safety expert.” Birnbach’s opinions are not based on any particular scientific theory that can be tested. And they are not based on a methodology subjected to the rigors of peer review and publication. Instead, his opinions are based on his experience. When considering whether an opinion based on an expert’s experience is reliable, courts consider whether the expert has explained “how [his] experience leads to the conclusion reached, why [his] experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how [his] experience is reliably applied to the facts.”

The Court held that Birnbach’s opinions would not be helpful to a jury because they are not based on any specialized knowledge. Laypeople know that signs should not fall on customers’ heads while they are shopping in a store. They know that objects placed in high places can fall down if not properly secured. And they know that falling objects can cause injury. They do not need an expert to tell them these things.

Held

The Court granted DSG’s motion to exclude evidence from Plaintiffs’ liability expert, Jerry Birnbach.

Key Takeaway:

Because Birnbach’s opinions would not help the jury, their admission would be improper under Rule 702. The Court excluded Birnbach’s opinions because they did not require specialized knowledge and were opinions a layperson could form, and would thus not be helpful to a jury.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Morgan Et Al V. Dick Sporting Goods, Inc.
Docket Number:8:22cv1633
Court:United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Order Date:August 14, 2024

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *