This case involves injuries caused by a falling sign at a retail store. Allison Howard alleged that on March 27, 2023, she was shopping in a Target store when she was hit in the neck and upper back by an improperly attached metal and wooden sign that fell from the top shelf of the aisle she was shopping in. Howard claimed that she did not cause the sign to fall.
At her deposition, Howard testified that the accident occurred when her ex-husband, Isaiah Laborde, who was playing catch with her children, tossed a stuffed animal (specifically, the crab Sebastian from the Little Mermaid) in the air and it hit the sign, causing it to fall. Laborde confirmed the same at his deposition. Nonetheless, Howard alleged that Target’s negligence caused the accident, and she sought various damages for her resulting injuries.
Howard hired Mitchell Wood as a liability expert to support her theory of the case. Target argued that Wood should be precluded from testifying for a myriad of reasons.
Architecture Expert Witness
Mitchell Wood holds degrees in architecture and civil engineering, has been a licensed architect for 36 years and a licensed commercial general contractor and residential builder for more than 25 years. He owns an architectural design and planning firm that performs residential and commercial design services, building and safety code reviews, site inspections, and project management. He also owns a residential and commercial building business. Wood has been involved in commercial and retail building design projects, including designing safe walkways. He has been accepted as an expert witness by Louisiana federal and state courts in the fields of construction, inspection, project management, site safety, architecture and design, and building codes.
Discussion by the Court
Mitchell Wood
Wood, after reading the complaint and Laborde’s deposition, studying photographs of the accident scene and the sign, and examining the stuffed animal (which weighs 1.27 ounces), issued a report in which he opined “that the metal/wood sign was not anchored in or attached to the support bracket in a secure manner.”
He stated that he deduced this opinion from the relatively light weight of the stuffed animal, which he said should not have been able to detach the heavier sign from the bracket.
Wood further opined that Target knew, or should have known, of the unsafe manner in which the sign was attached to the overhead bracket. And he stated that “Target’s failure to safely attach this metal/wood sign to the support bracket in question created a hazardous condition which resulted in an unreasonable risk of harm to its customers” that “could have been easily rectified by properly anchoring the metal/wood sign with a screw and/or bolt.”
Finally, according to Wood, “the hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm created by Target is a ‘prima facie’ cause and cause-in-fact of Howard’s injuries.”
Parties’ Positions
First, Target argued that, as an architect and general contractor, Wood is unqualified to render opinions in this matter because he does not have any experience or qualifications related to retail signage or falling merchandise claims, has never published on those subjects, and is not a retail safety expert. Next, Target contended that Wood’s opinions are unreliable because he did not inspect the sign, did not take into account Laborde’s actions as a cause of the accident, and did not conduct a duty-risk analysis before concluding that Target was at fault. Finally, Target argued that Wood’s opinions that a dangerous condition existed and that Target knew, or should have known, about it should be excluded as improper legal conclusions that will not assist the jury.
In opposition, Howard argued that Wood is qualified to render the opinions he stated in his report because he has decades of experience as an architect and contractor, including experience working on the design and safety of commercial buildings. She then recounts counsel’s efforts to arrange for Wood to inspect the property and blames Target for the lack of inspection. Howard contended that Wood’s opinions are relevant and reliable because he can testify as to the difference in the weight between the objects involved – a 1.27 ounce stuffed animal as compared to a 2.79 pound sign – and explain that the toy should not have been able to dislodge the sign if the sign was secured properly.
Howard also argued that Wood can explain the cost-benefit analysis regarding Target’s layout and alterative signage attachment systems. Finally, Howard argued that Wood’s opinions would be helpful to the jury because most jurors are not familiar with “retail signage attachment systems and general pedestrian safety precautions in a retail store setting.”
Analysis
Having weighed Wood’s report and qualifications against the arguments presented, the Court found that Wood’s education and experience qualify him to render the opinions expressed regarding the relative weights of the objects involved in the incident and available alternative methods for anchoring the sign. Those opinions are relevant and reliable. However, Wood may not offer any opinions as to ultimate factual or legal conclusions, including whether Target knew, or should have known, there was an unsafe condition, whether Target created an unreasonable risk of harm, and what constitutes a prima facie cause or cause-in-fact of the accident and injuries. These matters are reserved for either the factfinder or the Court.
Held
The Court granted Target’s motion in limine to exclude Mitchell Wood’s testimony as to precluding Wood from testifying as to ultimate factual and legal conclusions, including whether Target knew, or should have known, there was an unsafe condition, whether Target created an unreasonable risk of harm, and what was a prima facie cause or cause-in-fact of the accident and injuries. The motion is otherwise denied.
Key Takeaway:
Wood was barred from testifying as to ultimate factual and legal conclusions, but his education and experience qualify him to render opinions regarding the relative weights of the objects involved in the incident and available alternative methods for anchoring the sign.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Howard V. Target Corporation Of Minnesota |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv252 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | October 31, 2024 |
Leave a Reply