Sebastian Symeonides got stuck in a malfunctioning elevator at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas for 20 minutes on Valentine’s Day 2022, which also happened to be his wedding day. So he sued Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC and its affiliated entities, along with Otis Elevator Corporation for negligence and products liability. His claims are based primarily on the opinions of his retained elevator-maintenance expert, John Koshak.
John Koshak opined that PE3 malfunctioned because the hoistway ropes stretched, resulting in the lowering of the compensation sheave to the point where the switch tripped, which stopped the elevator.
Koshak further concluded that Otis’ maintenance of PE3 was negligent for this incident to occur, as Otis employees must have failed to notice and fix the stretched ropes or the lowering of the compensation sheave before the incident occurred.
Otis filed a motion to exclude Koshak’s report and testimony, arguing that it is not based in the scientific method, plus it’s speculative and irrelevant.
Elevator and Escalator Expert Witness
John Winfield Koshak has worked in the elevator industry for the last several decades. He belongs to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), he is a certified elevator inspector, and he has earned various other accolades and accomplishments in the world of elevators.
Discussion by the Court
A. Koshak’s opinion is not excludable for his failure to use the scientific method
Otis contended that Koshak’s opinions must be excluded because they are not based on “good science” like “testable” conclusions or “peer-reviewed or published literature.”
The Court held that Koshak’s opinions are not based on scientific experiments or published studies, but rather founded upon his more than four decades of specialized knowledge, training, and experiential practice in the elevator industry—primarily as an elevator adjuster, serviceman, consultant, and research engineer.
B. Koshak’s Causation Opinion is not Based on Cherry-Picked Evidence
Otis’ second criticism is that Koshak’s opinion that the compensation sheave caused Symeonides’s wedding-day incident is excludable because it is “founded on cherry-picked evidence that feeds into Koshak’s result-driven litigation opinion.”
However, Koshak’s deposition testimony confirmed that they are also based on a review of Otis’ business records; attorney discussions, reports from emergency personnel, and building engineering incident reports.
Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Koshak’s opinions are based on cherry-picked evidence.
C. Koshak’s Opinion that the Compensation Sheave Should have been Examined Twice a Year is based on Specialized Knowledge and Experience
A key opinion of Koshak is that the defect in the compensation sheave would have been apparent to Otis had it sent in a competent, qualified mechanic in to perform a proper inspection of the elevator pit twice yearly.
Otis contended that “[t]here is no foundation for” this opinion, which “is based only on his self-serving interpretation of the Code, maintenance records, and selected witness testimony,” making it neither relevant nor reliable.
However, Koshak’s deposition testimony demonstrated that his twice-a-year inspection-frequency opinion is based on his extensive experience in elevator maintenance and specialized knowledge, not mere speculation.
D. Koshak’s opinion that Otis did not Sufficiently Examine the Elevator is Based on Specialized Knowledge and Experience and is Relevant and Helpful
Otis offered the same criticism of Koshak’s opinion that Otis’ preventative maintenance was insufficient: it’s pure speculation. Otis also attacked Koshak’s negligent-maintenance opinion as irrelevant and unhelpful.
A review of Koshak’s deposition testimony revealed that this opinion was based on the conditions of the elevator and pit, which revealed extensive neglect; Koshak’s experienced belief that the inspections performed were too short to complete all required tasks; plus the absence of maintenance records that reflected that key tasks were performed.
Moreover, the messy condition of the pit was just part of the foundation for Koshak’s opinion that insufficient maintenance had been performed.
Koshak May not Offer Legal Opinions Unrelated to Negligence
Otis argued that Koshak should not be permitted to offer opinions that “Otis was contractually obligated to inspect the pit at least twice a year” or that Otis’ maintenance records were “fraudulent.” The Court held that the Plaintiff has not established that Koshak is qualified to offer such legal opinions.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Otis’ motion to exclude John Koshak’s testimony.
Key Takeaway:
Koshak will not be permitted to offer the legal conclusions that Otis’ actions constituted a breach of contract or fraud. The contract-breach and fraud opinions are irrelevant in this negligence case, and expert testimony that does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, nonhelpful.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Symeonides V. Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv854 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nevada |
| Order Date: | May 28, 2025 |
Leave a Reply