Plaintiff Luz Query tripped and fell over a speed bump located in the parking lot of the Costco warehouse in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Plaintiffs, Luz Query and Lance Query brought this negligence action seeking damages for Luz’s past and future medicals, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, and for Lance’s loss of consortium.
Defendant asked the Court to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert, Neil B. Hall, PhD because his testing methods cannot be reproduced and he did not base his opinions on applicable safety standards.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness
Neil Bradley Hall is a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect and interior designer with 20 years of design/build experience with the Army Corps of Engineers and Navy Civil Engineer Corps, in addition to more than 30 years of experience in the field and courtroom as a forensic engineer in private practice.
Discussion by the Court
First, Defendants did not challenge the legitimacy of the ASTM standards nor their general acceptance in the community as a reasonable set of standards upon which to base one’s opinions. Defendant argued that Hall’s opinions should be excluded because he did not reference any other set of safety standards. But Defendant cited no case where a Court has excluded an expert because they referenced only one widely accepted set of safety standards. The Court will not exclude Hall on that basis.
Costco also presses that the opinions are irrelevant because the City of New Orleans does not require Costco to adhere to the ASTM safety standards. That the City of New Orleans did not require Costco to have ASTM-compliant speed bumps in its parking lots did not mean that the ASTM standards are illegitimate, unaccepted in the broad community of experts, or are otherwise unfit to be referenced as a standardized suggestion of recommended safety practices. Overall, the Court will not exclude Hall just because he relied upon the ASTM.
Second, Defendant suggested that Hall’s report did not rest on reliable principles and methods because, for example, he did not perform any “testing.” But replicable tests, for example, are not a black letter requirement under Rule 702 nor Daubert.
Third, Costco separately challenged the report as irrelevant because his proffered observations are within the common experience and understanding of jurors. Here, because the ASTM standards purportedly do not apply to Costco, Hall is in a unique position to explain the benefits and risks of Costco deciding to follow the guidelines suggested in a general set of safety standards, like those offered in the ASTM. Hall’s assistance to the trier of fact is further supported by his years of experience studying urban planning, architecture, and as a licensed civil engineer.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert Neil B. Hall.
Key Takeaway
True, the common juror is capable of observing a photograph of a speed bump and making their own determination about its relative safety. But Hall’s testimony can add additional beneficial layers and, importantly, “bring to the jury more than the lawyers can offer in argument.” Hall relied on his extensive experience in opining on whether Costco should have taken additional safety measures with respect to its speed bumps.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Query V. Costco Wholesale Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv2082 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | May 04, 2026 |
Leave a Reply